Book Review: The 3D Gospel

As mentioned in my last post, as preparation for the upcoming trip, as a team we have been asked to read through the book “The 3D Gospel” by Jayson Georges. I mentioned I’d put in my review of the book as my next post, so here it is. I’ll probably put in a follow-on section in the next post after the team discussion at our next group meeting.

The 3D Gospel

The book has the premise that the Gospel is too often shared using the predominant worldview of the Western World and that the rest of the world also known as the “Majority World” doesn’t understand the presentation due to their culture having a different worldview. The author, Jayson Georges, developed these insights during his time in Asia. Since then, he has expanded on this framework through various books, lectures, and teaching engagements.

What is “3D”

Georges uses an illustration of a diamond and most only seeing one facet of the diamond. The three cultures that the subject of the book revolves around are:

• Guilt-Innocence: This is the primary culture and worldview in the Western world. This cultural viewpoint focuses on the law and forgiveness emphasizing the pursuit of justice and righteous living.
• Shame-Honor: This is a dominant culture in the East and would be characterized by a focus on inclusion and restoration of status. The people work to live with honor and avoid shame (on them or groups to which they belong).
• Fear-Power: This culture has a focus on spiritual forces and how to be protected from their powers. This is found primarily in tribalistic groups. The people work to appease or dominate the forces through rituals or superstitious practices.

With this framework set, the book moves to show how to spread the message of the Gospel in each culture since a presentation shared from a different cultural perspective won’t be grasped.

Book Overview

Georges introduces the whole idea through an illustration of someone from Central Asia who became a Christian after hearing a presentation from the perspective of guilt and innocence but then continued to act from a Shame/Honor or Fear/Power context. From this introduction, he concludes that the person needed to be saved from shame and fear and not only guilt.

The Three Cultures

He states that the guilt/innocence cultures are primarily focused on rules and laws that define right and wrong—that this is taught early and internalized in each person to know right and wrong. A person is defined by his actions.

With shame/honor cultures he draws an equivalence to collectivistic cultures (focused on community). Shame and honor are how the group regards you. It’s more a matter of who one is and not what one does. People are taught to maintain harmony and that they are an interdependent part of the whole.

In a fear/power culture, he states that the focus is to appease the capricious spiritual powers rather than on morals or ethics. This is done usually through amulets, charms, and rituals. One wants to be in harmony with the spiritual forces around in order to live well.

He finishes the section with an illustration on how one might get to a destination through accessing a map, asking people, or avoiding spiritually dangerous places.

Contextualizing the Gospel

After explaining the three types of cultures he then pivots to how one might contextualize the Gospel in each one.

Culture Type	Core Question	Main Need
Guilt-Innocence	Am I right or wrong?	Forgiveness
Shame-Honor	Am I worthy or unworthy?	Honor/Acceptance
Fear-Power	Am I safe or in danger?	Power/Victory

For the guilt/innocence culture, Georges presents the familiar story focusing on God’s holiness, sin as transgression, the Law, and Jesus as the sacrifice for forgiveness and righteousness.

For the shame/honor culture, the story is different. God is the honorable King and was shamed in the fall. Jesus left his honor and came as a lowly human to save people from shame and restore dignity. Jesus endured the shame of the cross breaking its power restoring God’s honor and removing our shame.

For the fear/power culture, the narrative focuses on power. Adam disobeyed and put humanity under the kingdom of Satan. Jesus came to initiate God’s kingdom and restore God’s sovereignty and his followers power and dominion in his kingdom.

Jesus’ Death and the Cross

As Jesus’ death and resurrection are central to the Gospel, how does this specific event look for each culture?

For the fear/power perspective, humans are enslaved and can’t just get stolen back from Satan’s power. Jesus paid a ransom of his life for Satan to release his authority but, as Jesus was not liable to death, he eluded Satan’s control and liberated the human race.

For the shame/honor perspective, humans have dishonored God and are incapable of satisfying their honor debt. Jesus was able to fully honor God and eliminated the need to exact punishment for the shame brought on. The ultimate purpose of the cross was to restore God’s honor and repairs our face before God.

For the guilt/innocence perspective, God’s being holy and just requires that transgressions need to be punished. To forgive without punishment would be unjust. The death on the cross pays the debt of the transgressions and satisfies the requirement for punishment and allows us to be forgiven and declared righteous.

My Thoughts

One can tell that Georges is from a Western culture and has some experience in Eastern cultures and not much in animistic or tribal contexts as his sections on the Fear/Power groups is the smallest part without as much detail or discussion. Surprisingly, though, I would say that the section on Shame/Honor of which he puts himself forward as an expert with his website and lectures is the weakest and where he needs to stretch things to fit his premise.

First Impressions

To be honest, I had a hard time reading through this even though it is a short book. The logical jumps, inconsistencies, and stretching of ideas kept jumping out at me making it hard to follow the flow.

• He uses the Apostle Paul’s preaching and writing as examples of guilt/innocence but then also says that the cultures in biblical times were primarily shame or fear based.
• He says that shame is most deeply about a person’s being as opposed to guilt focused on what has been done, but then has all the examples of shame being some action that was done.
• He draws an equality between guilt worldview and individualistic cultures and between shame and collectivist cultures (and leaves fear cultures out). While there may be overlap, these seem to be different axes. He probably needs to do this though, as many of the examples in the shame sections are around community and collectivist norms rather than just shame itself.
• He started out talking about those in the West or from the guilt/innocence cultures doing a disservice by only showing one facet of the “diamond” (Gospel), but then goes on in the gospel presentations to build up three different narratives—one for each worldview. It seems he’s falling into the same trap that he’s arguing against and presenting three different “1D” Gospels rather than one coherent “3D” gospel.
• While he does state that all groups are a mixture of cultures and the Gospel being more than just guilt/innocence focused, he seems to add it as a caveat to any critique since he then goes right back into his main arguments for ministry in the one cultural worldview of whichever culture one might be in.
• In order to keep with his framework, he has some parts that seem theologically “off”. Did Adam’s sin in the garden shame God? Did God really lose face? Did God lose sovereignty when Satan rebelled? Is sin really just something that brings shame?

Further Reflections

To really wrap things up, I probably wouldn’t recommend this book. I think it probably started with good intentions, but there is really something strongly missing here. He draws the theology and ministry from sociology and seems to force fit the message into the sociological framework. He talks about the Gospel being 3D and having all aspects, but then when presenting the theology or ministry to a certain group, presents his “1D” view that fits that culture. This is where I differ greatly from Georges.

I have an issue when Georges presents his three “1D” gospels, trying to make the message fit the culture. While I would agree that we need to understand the culture where we minister and would agree that the Gospel can address the different cultures. Georges uses Ephesians and Genesis (the fall in the garden) to show that there is guilt, shame, and fear that are addressed. He started out criticizing the Western presentation of the gospel with a focus on guilt and innocence as not being adequate for other cultures, but then seems to push the ministry in the other cultures to only be one-dimensional as well.

I would say that, while we may use cultural language and norms to gain a hearing, the presentation needs to show all aspects of the gospel and not only the one facet that is easiest for each culture to see. When Adam sinned, he was guilty of disobedience AND felt shame AND was fearful. People in individualistic cultures can feel shame or fear. There is not an equivalence between guilt/individualistic or shame/collectivist cultures either. God holds each person guilty and calls us individually. He calls us to commune with him and with each other in community. He holds believers as forgiven, bestows honor as we honor him, and calls us into the spiritual battle.