Ch 5 The Uncommon Identity of Whole-ly Disciples

My wife and I live in the high-density earthquake zone of the Los Angeles area. Seismologists tell us that we are long overdue for the ‘big one’ to hit our area. When I think about the big one coming, I get concerned and even wish we lived elsewhere. The fact is that I rarely think about it happening. While we’ve made the usual preparations, the coming big one is an existing (imminent) reality that perhaps I manage with denial.

The subtle process of denial is a common practice among Christians who don’t want to think about or face inconvenience, uncomfortable and contrary realities in life. One way to deny these realities is to re-form them with alternative facts, half-truths or biased interpretations—the big earthquake won’t happen in my presence. Another denial method is to break up such a reality into untruths and false reports or fake news, thereby decomposing its significance to warrant our attention. For example, can you deliberate on the reality that in their discipleship Jesus’ disciples have reflected, reinforced or sustained the human condition? To comprehend this reality is not trying to imagine an alternative or virtual reality. Rather this is the existing reality of disciples commonly living in reduced theology and practice.

Can you comprehend Peter being called Satan by Jesus because “you are a stumbling block to me; for you are setting your mind not on God’s relational terms and purpose but on human terms” (Mt 16:23). “Setting your mind” (phroneō) exposed Peter’s mindset shaped by the common prevailing in Peter’s surrounding context. Jesus unfolded his relational progression to fulfill the sacrifice behind the curtain to the Holy Place in order to tear down the holy partition to complete the gospel’s whole relational outcome (Heb 9:12; 10:19-22). For Peter, however, “This must never happen to the Messiah” (Mt 16:22). In his bias shaped by the common of human contextualization, Peter had to deny the reality essential to make whole the human condition. Why would Peter engage in so consequential a denial, which even placed the blame on Jesus “to rebuke him” openly?

The importance of understanding our bias in defining who and what we are as disciples and its consequence for how our discipleship is can be neither overestimated nor overemphasized. Peter’s bias was further exposed at Jesus’ footwashing, which was clear evidence that his bias wasn’t changed since being called Satan. But, in fact, Peter interpreted this new face of Jesus to support his old bias of what Jesus would never do; this involves a process of discrimination and stereotyping known as confirmation bias: the pattern to interpret or selectively remember information in such a way that confirms and reinforces what we already believe, without testing its validity. Even deeper, the bias Peter engaged demonstrated how Peter functioned as a relational orphan in his discipleship—still “to be apart” from whole relationship together face to face. Therefore, Peter reflected, reinforced and to this extent sustained the human condition. And all those having a similar bias shaped by what’s common—thus whose mindset (phroneō) is not set on the primary of God’s whole relational terms—also function subtly as relational orphans. This condition should not be considered sympathetically, because like Peter, relational orphans essentially reflect, reinforce and/or sustain the deeper reality of the relational condition “to be apart” from the primacy of new relationship together in wholeness—in spite of ontological simulations and functional illusions appearing to the contrary. This reality is the common identity prevailing in our diverse condition of disciples and discipleship, which exposes where our mindset is set on.

How do we reconcile our existing condition with the gospel that we all claim? There is another reality in life that all of us encounter: When you are exposed to something long enough, it tends to be accepted as true even though originally it may not have been, or at least its validity was initially in question.[1] Likewise, when Christians have heard variations of the Good News long enough, it often becomes their accepted gospel even though the variation was in effect an alternative reality—perhaps fake news based on alternative facts. The reality we are faced with here is the commonizing influence of human life and its specific commonization of the gospel and its outcome of disciples and their discipleship. In other words, the common existing in human life in general and in our surrounding context in particular has become the prevailing determinant shaping our practice if not our theology.

There is a growing trend in theology today that affirms the diversity of biblical views in the global church. For example, this affirmation is highlighted in the recent issue of Fuller Theological Seminary’s magazine, which provost, dean and biblical scholar Joel Green introduced with the following: “we bring ourselves, with all of the textures and hues and flourishes of our humanity, to the Bible. We inhabit Scripture in different ways. Scripture challenges us and encourages us in different ways.” Green embraces this diversity with the conclusion: “Taken together, though—by the church across time and around the globe—we are drawn closer to hearing and understanding the big picture of what God is saying and doing through his Word.”[2]

One of the theological benefits of listening to global voices is the chastening effect it has on Western theology, and the corrective efforts made on the West’s imperialism in Christian theology and practice throughout the global church. On the other hand, there is a clarification and correction also needed for this diversity in order not to reflect, reinforce and repeat the same epistemological, hermeneutic, ontological and relational shortcomings that commonly compose Western theology and practice, both past and present. Before we can celebrate diversity in the global church, we must (1) be accountable for the biased influence we all exert from our particular surrounding contexts that has shaped us in the process of contextualization—the contextualized bias. Then, we must deeper still (2) be redeemed from the biased influence we all demonstrate from the common of reductionism composing the human context, which has had the subtle primacy to define our ontology and determine our function in the process of commonization—the commonized bias. The process of contextualization has been misunderstood in our theology and practice, and the process of commonization has been ignored or simply resigned to or accepted as an assumed reality. The consequence has been continued distortions rendered by our contextualized and commonized biases, the diverse views of which we cannot assume to be different angles of God’s big picture.

In order to affirm any interpretation of Scripture emerging from a particular context, we must account for its contextualized bias and ensure that that bias has not gained primacy over God’s relational context, and thereby gained hermeneutic (interpretive) control over the relational terms and process of God’s Word. In God’s communicative action disclosed by the Word, the text of the Bible has never composed apart from God’s relational context; and the nonnegotiable primacy of God’s context always renders interpretation of the text contingent not on the diversity of readers but on the whole relational terms of God’s relational process to engage us in relationship together. The presumed primacy given to any form of our contextualized bias prevents this relational connection with God to understand what and who God discloses in the human context, and how God is involved both with us and in the big picture. Furthermore, our commonized bias either limits or prevents us from seeing the full profile of God’s face, and from experiencing the presence and involvement of God face to face.

Contrary to Green’s assumption above, understanding God’s big picture—the integrating process of syniemi (cf. Mk 8:17-21)—does not emerge from the global quantity of diverse interpretations, nor is this understanding gained from the sum of global diversity. In his above introduction, Green uses Justo Gonzalez’s metaphor of looking at a landscape for reading the Bible. Since we all see the landscape differently, seeing only parts of it without seeing the whole landscape, Green insists on the need to take all the views together for the big picture. Yet, I assert that a landscape is an incongruent metaphor for the face of God who is present and involved, and for what is necessary to have the full profile of God’s face that composes the whole gospel. This big picture consists of neither various portraits nor a collection of snapshots that could be taken from the Bible. All of us see the same face if we indeed see God; we may not all emphasize or like the same features of the Face but we still see the same Face. As with viewing any person, if we don’t see the same Face we are in effect viewing another God—whom we cannot count on to be “the same yesterday and today and forever for all of us in the faith” (Heb 13:8).

Moreover, the Face is not an Object merely to observe like a still picture but only the Subject whose full profile cannot be understood by the sum of mere partial views. The big picture of the whole gospel is composed by the Face’s presence and involvement as Subject; and this whole picture in dynamic profile emerges from the relational outcome of whole understanding (synesis from syniemi) that integrates the specific knowledge (epignosis) of God disclosed by the embodied “face of Jesus Christ” (as Paul illuminated, 2 Cor 4:6; Col 2:2-3). The early disciples lacked this integrated understanding of the full profile of Jesus, in spite of the quantity of their diverse observations of the Word (Mk 8:17-21; Jn 14:9). How could this disparity of interpretation and lack of understanding happen with Jesus’ main disciples? And if this was the condition of their theology and practice, how can we have confidence in and affirm the diversity of theology and practice in the global church?

The Face once again faces all of us with what has subtly gained primacy in the theology and practice of our persons, relationships and churches. To be involved, however, in the primacy of face-to-face relationship together with God for the above epistemological and hermeneutic outcome, we must also be redeemed from the limits and constraints of our most basic bias, our commonized bias which has subtly defined our ontology and determined our function in the common terms of reductionism.

We all certainly are not alike and have distinct differences. This diverse condition nevertheless still involves only secondary aspects of our identity, aspects which are expressed by what signify ‘the veil’ of our identity. To be involved in relationship together with the Face in the primacy of face to face requires the veil of all our secondary differences to be removed, so that “all of us with unveiled faces…are being transformed into the same image and likeness of the Trinity for face-to-face relationship together” (as Paul made definitive, 2 Cor 3:18). As long as the veil of our differences remains, we do not have the relational connection to know and understand the full profile of the Trinity’s presence and involvement, nor are we in our persons, relationships and churches transformed into the Trinity’s image and likeness. And, in spite of any avoidance or denial of the existing reality of the veil, the inescapable relational consequences are fragmentary theology and practice in the condition of reduced ontology and function. Even then, these consequences are likely engaged in ontological simulations and functional illusions that are presumed to be correct and significant but are not on the same relational path as Jesus, and thus that in effect reflect, reinforce and sustain the human relational condition.

In other words, therefore, we cannot affirm any interpretation of Scripture until this clarification and correction are made by the whole relational terms and process of the Word, whose ongoing relational outcome puts the process of contextualization into its primary context and exposes the process of commonization for its transformation to wholeness. What integrally unfolds to negate the bias for (as in affirming) the common is the distinguished bias against the common—that is, the distinguishing bias with-in the uncommon.

The bias for the common is most evident in an underlying theological anthropology that subtly defines our persons and determines our relationships by reduced ontology and function. Reduced ontology and function is the common condition prevailing in all human contexts, without exception, and this inclusiveness is seductive or at least susceptible to being accepted as the norm even among Christians throughout the global church. This bias has been able to be sustained because underlying our reduced theological anthropology is a weak view of sin that does not encompass what Jesus saved us from. This inadequate view, which is the same lens underlying diversity in the church, does not acknowledge or cannot recognize sin as reductionism. Therefore, this bias commonizes our ontology and function to the existing measure(s) of our human contexts. Each diverse context has its own secondary variation of this reduced condition, but all contexts have in common this underlying reduced ontology and function that define their persons and determine their relationships in fragmentary terms contrary to whole terms. There is no basis for affirmation of diversity in the global church as long as this bias for the common exists; and there will be no celebration of the global church until this commonized bias has been transformed to the distinguishing bias with and in the Uncommon.

God declared, not to inform us but to clarify, correct and challenge us: “You thought that I was one just like yourself” (Ps 50:21). God exposed this alternative reality among his people, which continues to exist today not explicitly in our theology but implicitly in our practice. The essential reality is that “I am holy” (qādôsh, Lev 11:44), who is separate from what is common and thus distinctly set apart from the common. The whole profile of God’s holy face is distinguished by nothing less and no substitutes. The alternative reality reconstructs this essential reality with what is common, thereby reversing the basis for the reality of God and his people in effect with alternative facts (as in Ps 50:9-13). That is, the issue in this effort is not necessarily to “be like God” (as in the primordial garden, Gen 3:5) but rather this two-fold dynamic: (1) Shape God and relationship together subtly in our terms (perhaps in our image), and (2) determine our person as Jesus’ disciples and our life in discipleship indirectly through the bias of our terms. The insurmountable difference that God magnifies is that God is whole and uncommon (whole-ly) in ontology and function, while the terms of our ontology and function are fragmentary and common.

The whole-ly God’s presence and involvement are distinguished only by the dynamic of nothing less and no substitutes. Our terms subtly engage in the reverse dynamic of anything less and any substitutes, which is assumed by our underlying bias influenced by the common. This commonized bias, for example, was evident when Samuel picked out the successor to lead God’s kingdom; but the LORD clarified and corrected him with the essential reality that “whole-ly God does not see as humans see and give priority accordingly” (1 Sam 16:6-7). In technical terms, our bias presumes that God sees and thinks analogous to a human algorithm, which we then can duplicate by our individual and/or collective efforts. This bias emerged from the beginning of human history and set into motion the reverse dynamic of anything less and any substitutes for God’s whole (Gen 3:5-7). Our terms today are merely modern substitutes, which at best can only simulate God’s dynamic of nothing less and no substitutes with illusions in our theology and practice. The difference in these opposing dynamics was clearly demonstrated between Mary and the other disciples, and this also clarifies, corrects and challenges the reality of our identity as disciples in our discipleship.

Therefore, God unmistakably distinguished the uncommon as incompatible with the common and thus as incongruent in the common. On this basis, it is imperative that we “be uncommon for I am uncommon” (Lev 11:44)—set apart from the common by being distinguished with-in the Uncommon. This clarification and correction critically composes the distinguishing bias with and in the Uncommon, who challenges the identity of who, what and how we are in order to be incompatible with the common and incongruent in the common—rather than an identity “just like yourself.”

To be compatible with the Uncommon and congruent in the uncommon of God is determined only by the whole relational terms of God’s relational process. This means that to be uncommon (or holy) is not about perfection—as in spiritually, morally, ethically, and thereby to misunderstand sanctification—but connection, that is, relational connection that is compatible with the Uncommon because it is congruent in the uncommon of God. When perfection is integrated with being sanctified, it then has a place in our practice to be holy and also whole (inseparably whole-ly); but its theology must not be composed with a commonized bias of idealized notions.

The Hebrews discipleship manifesto clarifies that the relational progression of Jesus’ relational work has sanctified us in the uncommon (Heb 10:10); and the relational outcome of this relational progression is to “make perfect” (teleioo) “those who are being made uncommon” (Heb 10:14, NIV). Teleioo means to complete the relational purpose of Jesus’ relational work, which is fulfilled by wholeness in relationship together. The whole-ly relational process is the only way, truth and means to this relational outcome of teleioo. In his manifesto for discipleship, Jesus made imperative for our practice the relational work to “be complete, mature [teleios]” in likeness of how our whole-ly Father is present and involved in uncommon love (Mt 5:45-48). His relational imperative, then, for all disciples is to be whole and uncommon in our relational involvement of family love just as our Father is, in order to distinguish our identity as his daughters and sons in family together. Therefore, perfection is always secondary to the primacy of relational connection with the Uncommon. Yet, this relational connection only happens with-in the Uncommon, which composes the primacy of relationship together distinguished only by the integral relational terms, language, context and process of the whole-ly God.

When Christians are not misguided by misunderstanding perfection, there typically is a common assumption Christians make about relationship with God: Because of God’s grace there is room for our imperfection, and thus there is space to exercise our personal interests, desires and other related terms; likewise, since God is loving and forgiving, there is flexibility in relationship together—if not presuming the relationship is negotiable. Jesus had a contrary approach to such differences. To Peter, Jesus said that he functioned as Satan, because he focused on the common at the expense of the uncommon (Mt 16:23). Jesus added later that Peter had no direct involvement in their relationship together, because Peter gave primacy to the common over the uncommon (Jn 13:8).

God’s relational response of grace and relational involvement of love distinguished the uncommon in order for us to be transformed from the common to the whole-ly, without which the influence of the common will pervade and prevail in our persons, relationships and churches—even if by default veiled in our good intentions. The Good News of God’s whole-ly presence and involvement is only for this whole-ly relational outcome (Heb 2:11; 10:10,14). Therefore, the Hebrews manifesto makes this relational imperative for discipleship: “Pursue wholeness in your function with everyone, and the uncommon without which no one will see the Lord face to face without the veil in intimate relationship together” (Heb 12:14, cf. 10:20-22).

Hebrews illuminates for all of Jesus’ followers the holy partition in relationship with the whole-ly God, who is inaccessible to anyone or anything common. The holy partition signifies the pivotal juncture in relationship with God. If we haven’t progressed past the holy partition, our relationship with God is influenced, shaped and occupied by the common, and thus subtly engaged in the reverse dynamic of anything less and any substitutes. Claiming the cross does not give us access to face-to-face relationship with the whole-ly God without embracing Jesus’ relational work tearing down the holy partition. Since such a claim apparently is the prevailing condition among Christians, the common still existing in effect has become the acceptable practice to define disciples and determine their discipleship. This relational condition is unacceptable in the Hebrews manifesto, not to mention clarified, exposed and corrected in Jesus’ manifesto definitive for all his followers (Mt 5-7).

Hopefully, the whole-ly relational outcome of the gospel clarifies, corrects and challenges us to change any common assumptions we have about relationship with God and being Jesus’ disciples. This, however, requires a distinguishing bias that does not defer to the common’s influence. As has been necessary for God’s whole-ly family, “You are to distinguish between the holy and the common” (Lev 10:10, cf. Eze 22:26).

Nathaniel asked in his bias whether anything good (agathos, beneficial, significant, distinguished, thus whole and uncommon) can come out of what’s only common (Jn 1:46). If Jesus were not clearly distinguished from the common, the answer would certainly be NO. Since Jesus’ presence and involvement were enacted apart from the shaping influence of the common, his ontology and function were unmistakably distinguished by the uncommon, that is, distinguished whole and uncommon. This essential reality is the whole-ly who and what Nathaniel discovered in his bias. It is unlikely that Nathaniel exercised a bias in the uncommon; and more likely that he expressed initially a commonized bias but was open enough to allow the uncommon to be discovered, experienced and thereby be responded to beyond the limits and constraints of the common. What we witness forming for Nathaniel further compels our need for what we see being composed in the above discussion, which unfolds only on this basis:

What is essential to follow whole-ly Jesus is for all disciples to openly have and ongoingly exercise in their discipleship the distinguishing bias emerging from face-to-face relationship with the Uncommon and unfolding unambiguously apart from the common and thus in the uncommon—the distinguishing bias with-in the Uncommon, which does not defer to the common’s influence but integrally exposes any existing bias for the common and acts against it for transformation to the whole-ly.

Certainly Peter struggled with the influence of the common in his discipleship that composed his bias as a disciple. So, it is relationally significant that his own relational progression was complete and matured (teleios) to transform his ontology and function to be whole-ly, and thereby further illuminate the whole-ly theology and practice for persons, relationships and the global church (1 Pet 1:13-16; 2:9-12). And for this distinguishing bias with-in the Uncommon, we must thank the whole-ly Mary whom Jesus magnified for taking the lead in order for the gospel’s whole-ly relational outcome to be the essential reality for all of Jesus’ followers. Her everyday life functioned in the dynamic of nothing less and no substitutes—in contrast to the others’ prevailing function in the reverse dynamic of anything less and any substitutes—whereby she distinguished the uncommon identity for all disciples.

Change in human life can be natural, unnatural or uncommon. The change in Mary was considered unnatural by the contextualized and commonized biases of the other disciples. Perhaps today her change is considered natural and thus of no greater significance to highlight for the gospel and magnify to distinguish Jesus’ followers. However perceived, change represents something different from what exists, and such change can be positive or negative—even a simulation of something new or an illusion of something better.

Like Mary, we all have opportunities to change, that is, to grow and mature in relational progression with Jesus, rather than avoid his essential progression and thereby resist change. When we don’t resist change in our discipleship, the issue becomes the type of change needed that truly signifies the relational progression distinguishing his disciples. The so-called progress witnessed in human contexts has often been merely a simulation of something new or an illusion of something better, and such progress is typically duplicated by Christians. The maturity of teleios (the imperative of Mt 5:48), however, involves the change that is relationship-specific to the whole-ly God and, therefore, progresses only in what’s whole and uncommon. This progress then requires the change to be the new, not a simulation of something new. To say the least, simulations and illusions of progress are alternative/virtual realities that regress under the common assumptions of progress. In real fact, they are regressions specifically in our relational condition, which emerge from, reinforce and sustain the human condition.

The pursuit of progress in human achievement is merely an effort in self-determination that defines persons and determines relationships based on reduced ontology and function. Even with good intentions to improve the human condition—for example, as observed in the excessive interventions of medical progress to prolong life—human intervention should not be confused with change to the new composed only by what’s whole and uncommon. Such attempts to reconstruct our human condition are always faced with the limits and constraints of their underlying bias—that is, a condition shaped by the common’s reductionism, which may achieve results that only appear to be new. This is where things become ambiguous in our theology and practice, and when it is critical for us to make distinctions. In the absence of whole ontology and function, two persistent and pervasive conditions converge for our human condition to prevail regardless even of good intentions: (1) the persistence of self-determination as the alternative for redefining persons and determining human life, and (2) the pervasive need for ontological simulation and functional illusion to support and maintain, even to justify, engagement in self-determination despite its limits and constraints. This creates a theological fog for our practice that obscures engaging in regression, which Jesus exposed and corrected in his manifesto for discipleship.

Therefore, all of Jesus’ followers should not conflate ‘seeking to be new’ with ‘pursuing progress of something new’; the former seeks his person in relationship (as in Mt 6:33) while the latter primarily pursues results in situations, making the relationship secondary (as in many innovations of ministry and worship). Our discipleship needs to maintain this distinction in order to be distinguished in the new and the uncommon for our persons, relationships and churches.

In our ancient history, the change for the new and the uncommon was attempted at Babel in order to prevent diversity in the human context and unify the fragmentation of the human condition (Gen 11:1-9). As human migration expanded, these residents determined to “build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make an identity for ourselves and not be fragmented over the face of the whole earth” (v. 4, NIV). In their self-determination, they wanted to construct a unity and have an identity together, without being fragmented into separate entities. What also converged with their self-determination was having good intentions, which is a common motivation that we often assume as sufficient basis for our function. Yet, there is a deeper understanding critical to human ontology and function that unfolded in this context paralleling contexts today; and this needs to be given a voice to articulate the human condition, our human condition. God totally rejected their good intentions and denied their human intervention and achievement for a common unity and identity together. Why wouldn’t God be pleased with them? Wasn’t this human progress from what God witnessed before the flood?

The reality is that this just further unfolded from what was set into motion from the beginning. We cannot merely assume that their good intentions didn’t reflect defining ‘good without wholeness’, or that their optimistic efforts engaged in anything more than reinforcing and sustaining the human condition. The parallel reality for today is the good intentions of human achievement for the purpose of so-called human progress (such as in technology and globalization) and the optimistic (vain or arrogant) efforts to build empire (such as in colonialism, including by the U.S., with economic neocolonialism). Our ancient counterparts chose the redefining alternative of self-determination, which conjointly required unavoidably a narrowed-down perceptual-interpretive lens and also composed them unmistakably in reduced ontology and function. Therefore, they assumed they could construct the whole based on their fragmentary parts and the sum of those parts, and that the result would be wholeness in their life together. Furthermore, their self-determination assumed they could construct the whole from ‘bottom-up’, and that the result would rise above the human context (with its limits and constraints) to achieve human progress to the level of God’s context (“a tower that reaches to the heavens”). The latter assumption is to be expected from a narrowed-down perceptual-interpretive lens, while the former assumption is understandable given the need for ontological simulation and functional illusion to sustain engagement in self-determination despite its limits and constraints. The reality, in other words, is that they tried to construct an alternative reality (virtual in retrospect) with alternative facts to avoid the existing reality of the human condition, which required them to deny their own condition.

Reduced human ontology and function can never achieve wholeness because the reality of its irremediable (not irreversible) condition, however variable, can never be whole. Human intervention, whether at the systemic level or interpersonal level, cannot go beyond the limits and constraints of its context and its defining ontology and function. Thus, human intervention is embedded in a contextualized bias and commonized bias that skew its efforts. This is indispensable to understand for the tower of Babel and for parallel efforts today to construct unity, wholeness and the whole. In relational response to the human condition, God deconstructed Babel in order to clarify their illusion and correct their simulation, and thus to expose the influence of reductionism composing their human condition in reduced ontology and function. Throughout human history—from Egypt, Babylon through the Roman empire, Great Britain to the United States and former Soviet Union, and now likely China—we have witnessed the recurring dynamic of Babel unfold, with God continuing to clarify and correct our illusions and simulations in relational response to our human condition in reduced ontology and function. As long as we don’t pay attention to our condition and consequently do not respond to God’s pursuit of us, then human development in our persons, relationships and churches will not grow and mature in wholeness; and we remain enclosed epistemologically, hermeneutically, ontologically, functionally and relationally within the limits and constraints of our condition. Can we justify this state among us, in all its diversity, as the gospel and simply accept it as sufficient for our faith to experience?

Just as Babel confused their efforts for all humanity to progress with the change of what’s new and uncommon, our modern history has evolved to further embed us in this confusion. The so-called progress in the present foretells perhaps an ominous future, namely in technological achievement. Advancement in computer technology has emerged prominently with robots to simulate, substitute for and replace human activity, which is certainly something new in the human context and uncommon to human make-up. What compounds this progress and complicates its change is the enigma of artificial intelligence (AI). This technology is becoming increasingly sophisticated such that AI is soon anticipated to achieve artificial consciousness to supplement, compete with and perhaps dominate human consciousness. In considering this outcome, this so-called progress in what’s new and uncommon can change the world, yet not to improve the human condition but at the expense of humans who become expendable. How this scenario unfolds will depend less on AI and more on the essential reality of those truly changing to the new and the uncommon—that is, real persons who are transformed from inner out (not programmed from outer in) to be new and therefore whole and uncommon.

Whether we recognize it in humanity in general or acknowledge it in ourselves as Christians in particular, the human condition thirsts for change. When the focus is on changing to the new and the uncommon—not merely something new and uncommon—it centers on the change that Jesus enacted for the human condition, our human condition. Yet, Christians have struggled with embracing this change and to have their identity distinguished by this change. In bringing change to the new, on the one hand, Jesus was welcomed because expectations were high for the Messiah (or Savior) to fulfill this change. However, on the other hand, the change to the new enacted by Jesus was both whole and uncommon, and this change to the new was too uncommon for many to claim, much less have their identity distinguished in. This resistance or struggle even for Christians is not surprising, since Jesus said “no one can put the new into old and common ways of thinking, seeing and doing things in their theology and practice”—as in “putting new wine into old wineskins” (Lk 5:37-39).

Jesus introduced his disciples to the change he brought by giving them a taste of the new wine. In a defining table fellowship, Jesus led his disciples in the relational involvement that initiated the change to the new. He and his disciples celebrated in relationship together rather than engage in the common practice of fasting with all the other diverse disciples in the surrounding context (Lk 5:33-36). Their relational involvement distinguished the primary from and over the secondary. The change Jesus established for the new integrally composed his disciples in a different identity in two significant ways:

1. Traditional disciples in those days were rabbinic students, whose central focus was on the teachings of a rabbi. This information formed their way of thinking, seeing and doing what was important for them to become teachers also. Jesus changed the identity of his disciples to a new discipleship that was distinguished uncommon from the prevailing common and ordinary way.

2. The new discipleship was more than uncommon in the sense of being out of the ordinary. What Jesus established was neither innovative nor necessarily anti-Establishment. Jesus enacted his whole person from inner out—beyond merely his teachings but not apart from them—in order for his disciples to experience the primacy of their whole persons in relationship together with his person. This primacy was never enacted by other rabbis, thus it was never experienced by their disciples nor engaged in their discipleship—all of whom were preoccupied with the secondary without integrating it into the primary (PIP-ing). In contrast for Jesus’ disciples, this taste of new wine was beyond what his disciples could have imagined to “Follow me.” The change to the new, therefore, is integrally whole and uncommon, and the relational progression of this uncommon identity of whole-ly disciples only unfolds in the dynamic of nothing less and no substitutes.

In spite of Jesus’ early disciples having a taste of the new wine, they obviously struggled with being distinguished in this uncommon identity. The common kept reemerging because their contextualized and commonized biased ways of thinking, seeing and doing things in their theology and practice still needed to be transformed. Unlike the others, the new composed by the whole was not a point of contention for these disciples. But, because this new was undeniably uncommon—that is, so out of the ordinary—they didn’t take it seriously enough to stand out unambiguously in this identity, just as light in the darkness does (Mt 5:14-16; Jn 8:12). Likewise, since the identity of Jesus’ disciples is different from all other disciples—composed by the essential difference—our identity has to be both uncommon and whole.

The difference of our identity that Jesus changed to the new was not about being innovative, and was more than unique. The new identity counters an assimilated identity shaped by the common of the surrounding context, which included the norms of religious tradition and of culture. In its depth, what the new identity counters is the human condition of reduced ontology and function. When Jesus was confronted about his disciples not following the traditional norms of their religious identity, he clearly defined the whole person from inner out as the essential identity of human ontology and function—which countered the common identity from outer in (Mt 15:1-20). Even after the taste of new wine, Peter still didn’t understand the essential difference distinguishing the identity of who, what and how they were as Jesus’ disciples (15:15-16). Essentially, the whole of this new identity was too uncommon for those in any assimilated identity, with the issue always revolving around the condition of our ontology and function.

This essential difference also raises the subtle issue of inconvenience for our theology and practice, which puts further pressure on our bias to use old wineskins (as Peter did). This is why Jesus said that many will conclude “the old is good, good enough, or even better” (Lk 5:39). Old wineskins are the relational consequence of becoming embedded in an ontological lie from reductionism that imposes an identity deficit, in which a person (or together as church) struggles to erase any deficit by efforts of self-determination in what one can do (e.g. fast). The more control one can exercise over this process, the more certain the results of one’s efforts can be expected. The pursuit of certainty, however, requires a reduction epistemologically, ontologically and relationally in order for the control needed to succeed in self-determination—notably narrowing the epistemic field to the probable and minimizing vulnerability in relationships. This is how God’s terms for covenant relationship outlined in the torah have been reduced to a behavioral code, how persons seek to become justified by what they do, how Jesus’ teachings become disembodied to mere principles to follow, how the new wine gets put into an old wineskin. The nature of old wineskins, therefore, is the nature of the human condition in its reduced ontology and function, seeking self-determination and self-justification by its reduced ontology and function in order to overcome the deficit for its reduced ontology and function—a vicious cycle enslaving human persons. And, accordingly, old wineskins emerge from an ambiguous or shallow identity necessitating the veil in relationships, because such an identity fails to engage the integral identity formation outlined by Jesus in the Beatitudes (Mt 5:3-10), and as a substitute pursues a reduced righteousness from outer in rather than whole righteousness from inner out (contrary to Mt 5:20 in Jesus’ manifesto for his followers).

Given the change that Jesus embodied, enacted and established, however, all his disciples are faced with this irreducible and nonnegotiable reality: For our identity to be distinct from the common—with its fragmentary condition and its reductions of human ontology and function—requires our persons, relationships and churches to be the whole distinguished only with-in the Uncommon. This is the whole-ly identity of the persons whom the Father seeks for face-to-face relationship together in him family (Jn 4:23-24). Engaging in anything less and any substitutes is the reverse dynamic of regression, which always impedes or prevents the relational progression of his whole-ly disciples who are relationally involved in the dynamic of nothing less and no substitutes.

The primacy of changing to the new converges in the new covenant for persons and relationships with the whole-ly God. At their pivotal table fellowship together, Jesus made this new covenant definitive for all his disciples (Lk 22:20). This change enacted by Jesus tore down the holy partition and removed the veil for the primacy of face-to-face relationship with the whole-ly God (Heb 8:6; 9:15; 10:19-20; 2 Cor 3:16). In the antecedent new wine table fellowship, Jesus addressed the juxtaposition of “eat and drink” (the new) and “fast and pray” (the old), which gave his disciples the functional taste of the pivotal change unfolding to its whole outcome. The shift from the old to the new is more than a paradigm shift but the transformation that emerges from Jesus’ anticipated sacrifice behind the curtain for the relational outcome of new relationship together in wholeness with the veil removed. Their new wine table fellowship anticipated their new covenant relationship without the veil such that they could enjoy the vulnerable presence and intimate involvement of Jesus without the constraints of the old. The veil can be understood as follows: the gap between the universe and that which is beyond, the barrier between human limits and the transcendent God, the qualitative distance between the human heart and the heart of God, and the relational distance between the human person and the whole-ly God. The absence of the veil, then, is critical for new covenant relationship together; and any new wine table fellowship today must continue to be solely a function of this new creation. Any other solas (i.e. grace alone, faith alone) only have significance as functions of the new creation alone.

Therefore, this relationship-specific primacy is constituted only by the new, and thereby integrates the relational involvement of changing to the new that is whole integrally with and in the uncommon Jesus (with-in the Uncommon). Changing to the primacy of this new relationship together—constituted without the holy partition and veil by the relational response of the vulnerable face of whole-ly God (Num 6:26; 2 Cor 4:6)—would be good news for all in the human condition to claim, especially relational orphans in the church, or so it would seem. After all, who wouldn’t want their persons and relationships to be whole rather than fragmentary?

Regardless, this primacy of the new has been a difficult change for Christians to make or progress in, because the primacy of the new covenant (1) involves whole persons in face-to-face relationship together with the whole-ly God that (2) requires persons and relationship together to be also uncommon for compatibility with whole-ly God. Even if you want to be whole, since the new is so out of the ordinary are you still willing to sustain changing to the new in order to be whole (cf. Lk 13:34; 19:41-42)? Taking on this whole-ly identity has been a circular problem composed by this reality: On the one hand, to be whole requires by necessity (not by obligation) to be uncommon like Jesus (as Jesus prayed, Jn 17:16-17); on the other hand, to be uncommon by nature necessitates to be whole like Jesus (as Jesus prayed, Jn 17:19-23, and promised, 14:27). This understanding creates a circular problem—being whole as living uncommon and living uncommon as being whole—that demands more than many Christians want to give for involvement in the primary. In other words, this circular problem subtly influences Christians to substitute for the primary by directing their focus and investing their practice in the secondary matters of faith. The relational consequence is that even though they may have illusions of relational progression in the new, in reality they are only simulating what amounts to regression in the old.

The subtlety of shifting from the primary to the secondary is obscured when engagement in the secondary is justified as primary for our faith. Reflect again on what Jesus magnified in Mary. Mary was vulnerably involved in relational work (ergon), which should not be confused with being occupied in “a good service” (Mk 14:6). In discipleship, when following Jesus is shaped by human terms, the line between the primacy of relationship and the primacy of the secondary becomes indistinguishable. In Jesus’ paradigm for serving, however, he is clearly definitive that the work of serving him (diakoneo) must by its nature emerge from and thereby be secondary to “follow me” (akoloutheo) in the primacy of face-to-face relationship together (Jn 12:26). The subjunctive mood of diakoneo is contingent on the imperative of akoloutheo. Diakoneo by itself is focused on giving primacy to the work to be done (as in Martha’s diakoneo), which, however important the work may be (or perhaps perceived to be), is always secondary to the primary involvement of akoloutheo with the person in relationship (as in Mary’s akoloutheo). When Jesus unequivocally defined the “need for only one” priority (Lk 10:42), the ongoing involvement in relational work based on the primacy of relationship became irreplaceable and nonnegotiable. All other work is secondary, and the (pre)occupation of anything less and any substitutes for relational work shifts the primary to the secondary, even inadvertently and with good intentions as evident with Martha. These are the qualitative and relational aspects of the human person and function, with which Jesus integrally impacts human contexts from his deeper relational context in order for persons to make the connection to God’s whole that holds together the integrity of both persons and relationships in their innermost, thereby transforming them from fragmentation to wholeness.

The shift to the primacy of the secondary must further be understood in the underlying quest for certainty and/or the search for identity. This process engages a narrowing of the epistemic field to better grasp, explain and have certainty, for example, about what holds persons and relationships together in their optimal condition. Functionally, the process also necessitates reducing the qualitative-relational field of expectations from inner out (too demanding, vulnerable with uncertain results) to outer in for quantitative- referential terms that are easier to measure, perform and quantify the results of, notably in the search for identity and finding one’s place in human contexts (including church and academy). In other words, the shift to the primacy of the secondary and its preoccupation are not without specific purpose that motivates persons even in the theological task and the practice of faith. Yet whatever certainty and identity result in secondary terms can only be incomplete, ambiguous or shallow. Jesus further critiqued this secondary certainty without the primacy in relationship (Jn 5:39,42) and the substitute identity without the qualitative depth of relational involvement (Mt 5:13-16; cf. 15:8-9).

After Paul’s own epistemological clarification and hermeneutic correction, he further extended the ongoing fight against the primacy of the secondary and its counter-relational work in the church. This is evident notably in his Corinthians and Galatians letters. The shift from inner out to outer in, and the preoccupation with the secondary over the primacy of relationship together, can be summarized in Paul’s relational words: “So let no one boast about persons from outer in…so that none of you will be puffed up in favor of one against another. For who sees anything different in you from inner out? …But when they measure themselves from outer in by one another, and compare themselves accordingly with one another, they do not understand the whole [syniemi]” (1 Cor 3:21; 4:6-7; 2 Cor 10:12, cf. 5:12); “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for the primary; the only primary that counts is the relational work of faith working through the relational involvement of love” (Gal 5:6).

The shift to the outer in and the secondary is always made at the expense of the qualitative and relational, as evident in Jesus’ and Paul’s critiques. Moreover, the qualitative and relational are interdependent and integral to the process to be whole, both for the person and persons together in relationship. The reduction or loss of either also results in the reduction or loss of the other. That is, they are inseparable. We cannot function in the qualitative from inner out apart from the involvement in the primacy of relationship; and we cannot be involved in the primacy of relationship without the function of the qualitative from inner out. The focus on and occupation with the secondary are consequential for reducing, if not preventing, the primary by (1) the focus narrowed to referential terms of the quantitative having primacy over the qualitative, and (2) the occupation reduced from relational terms to functional terms of what essentially becomes counter-relational work. In addition, when the primacy is given to the secondary, there are certainly repercussions theologically and for the gospel, as further evidenced in the critiques of Jesus (e.g. Mk 7:5-8, 14-23) and of Paul (e.g. Gal 1:6; 3:1-5). What all the above urgently bring out is our vital need to have ongoing involvement in the process of integrating priorities (PIP).

Changing to the new that is the whole distinguished only with-in the Uncommon is the only means all of Jesus’ followers have to compose their identity as his whole-ly disciples, whose ontology and function are in likeness of the whole-ly Trinity. Therefore, the integrity of the diverse identity of Christians individually and collectively as the global church is urgently challenged, if not confronted, by the new that Jesus embodied, enacted and fulfilled by Jesus for the only gospel available for our human relational condition.

It is apparent, perhaps obvious, that Christian identity has struggled in the human context to be distinguished in its whole identity—notably today in its diverse condition. The taste of the new-wine identity is no longer a foretaste of Jesus’ whole-ly disciples emerging, but it has become an aftertaste of this whole-ly identity that has not unfolded. Whatever variations of the new-wine identity exist today, their integrity has not been integrally the whole distinguished with-in the Uncommon; and this lack of integrity leaves that identity in a regressing condition unable to progress in the new creation of persons and relationships to wholeness in likeness of the whole-ly Trinity.

Jesus’ encompassing family prayer to the Father (Jn 17) centered on their whole-ly ontology and function, with the focus on those whose identity emphatically does “not belong to the common, just as I do not belong to the common” (17:13,16). The function of his followers’ uncommon identity, however, is not to be separated from the common but instead to not be reduced in the function of their whole identity (17:15), in order that the integrity of their identity’s ontology and function will be distinguished uncommon in the very context of the common. That is, uncommon identity intrudes in the common, while not belonging to it, in distinct likeness of whole-ly Jesus (17:17-19) and in essential likeness to the whole-ly ontology and function of the Trinity (17:20-23). So, then, would you affirm that the integrity of Christian identity can be variable, and perhaps even negotiable according to the context? And would you say that Christian identity today exists as Jesus prayed and unfolds in the context of the common in likeness of the whole-ly Trinity? The integral integrity of our identity is directly dependent on the relational reality that it will unfold just as Jesus prayed definitively for his whole-ly disciples as his family together.

What Jesus saves persons to was tasted at that new wine fellowship together and is summarized in his relational prayer, which includes making definitive the relational work necessarily involved to live whole ontology and function into the common’s human context. This relational work by necessity includes integral identity formation that is distinguished, on the one hand, in God’s relational context and, on the other hand, from the human context. Practically speaking, how do Christians live in God’s context now while living surrounded in the human context? That is the issue at hand that we all need to be addressing today because we are accountable for this living now. Identity distinguished from the human context is critical for whole ontology and function because it is not shaped by the limits and constraints of the human context, notably by secondary or false human distinctions. Accordingly, this relational work requires being able to live in the human context by the primacy of God’s context—that is, by an indispensable process of reciprocating contextualization (RC) , wherein ongoing interaction with the primacy of God’s context determines function in the person’s primary identity while in the human context. This function involves having a new visibility in our surrounding context (think about light) and a deeper relational involvement (think about family love), both of which may not be welcomed because of being out of the ordinary.

Since the taste of new wine relationship together in wholeness was initially experienced at a pivotal relational connection in new wine fellowship, it unfolds with significance only on God’s terms. In God’s relational action there are complex theological dynamics that converge in Jesus’ theological trajectory and relational path to constitute the whole-ly God’s integral relational response of grace to the human condition. The roots, growth, outcome and maturing of the new creation were integrally signified in a metaphor used by Jesus about the new wine (Lk 5:33-39). The focus of new wine provides us with a whole understanding of the priority of person-consciousness from inner out and its primacy of relationships together, in contrast to a self-consciousness of secondary matter.

The parable of new wine tends to be used incorrectly to emphasize new forms and practices, innovations focused more on the secondary and shaped more from outer in, all of which signify a common lens of referential language and terms. Part of misinterpreting or inadequately understanding the new wine involves, again, Jesus’ relational language. Jesus was not focused on situations and circumstances in life and, for example, being innovative in what we do in those situations and circumstances to maximize them. The seeds of the new wine are planted in the innermost of human life, not in secondary matter. Jesus’ primary concern is not about what we do but for who we are and how we live. Therefore, in relational terms Jesus engages the ontology and function of those present (even his critics) and unfolds the whole ontology and function of the new creation—in contrast and conflict with reduced ontology and function. This contrast in ontology and function was demonstrated in this context by Levi’s transformation for the relational outcome of the new wine table fellowship together as family (Lk 5:27-32), further constituted later with Zacchaeus (Lk 19:1-10) in the relational progression of Jesus’ tactical and functional shifts (discussed in the previous chap.). The new wine emerges only from the inner out of ontology and function made whole in the innermost of persons and relationships coming together intimately. When the new wine emerges from redefined and transformed persons, then its whole relational outcome is unmistakable in the intimacy of family relationships together with no veil.

The taste of new wine, however, turns sour, or new wine escapes, within the context of old wineskins. Old wineskins are implied in the alternatives of anything less and any substitutes, which are used especially to minimize being so out of the ordinary in the surrounding context, not to mention being vulnerable with our person. Certainly then, old wineskins both constrain the flow of the new wine and reduce it of its qualitative and relational significance. The nature of old wineskins emerges with any reduction of our ontology and function, thus from an ambiguous or shallow personal-collective identity with relationships still having the veil—for example, who we are without what and/or whose we are in the primacy of God’s context—in contrasting and conflicting function with Jesus’ new wine table fellowship that simply functioned in essential difference. Following Jesus in essential difference without the veil, of course, makes our person vulnerable to comparative scrutiny in the surrounding context. The alternative is to not be as intrusive as Jesus, which would mean for our visible face (presence) to be ambiguous and our involvement to be more shallow. That is to say, anything less and any substitutes subtly transpose the identity of our persons from their wholeness inner out to fragmentary outer-in parts, whereby the full profile of the identity of who and whose we are is veiled in ambiguity if not obscurity.

Paul revealed about his identity that “I have become all things to all people” (1 Cor 9:22). He didn’t imply, however, that the integrity of his identity varied with his surrounding context. All his various contexts were secondary to the primary context of his salvation, whose belonging defined his person and determined his function. Paul was redeemed and belonged to none of those contexts (9:19)—signifying not belonging to the common, as Jesus prayed—yet he chose to be relationally involved in family love with each of them in order for them to be saved to wholeness together in the relational outcome of the gospel (9:20-23). Not only did Paul maintain the integrity of the identity of his whole person, but the integrity of his whole function in who, what and how Paul was in relationship with each of them could be counted on by them to be true, complete and thus whole, rather than variable, partial or fragmentary. The latter is common in human contexts to minimalize vulnerability of persons in relationships, yet how satisfying is it to be involved with persons on that basis? The relational function demonstrated by Paul is vital for the integrity of all Jesus’ followers in their primary identity.

When some Pharisees tried to entrap Jesus to indict him, they ironically identified Jesus with his description: “you are a person of integrity, and teach the way of God in accordance with truth, and show deference to no one; for you do not regard people with partiality to their differences” (Mt 22:16). The integrity (alethes) they identified extended from the way of God’s covenant relationship, in which Abraham’s relational function was to have the integrity of tāmiym (blameless, complete, whole, Gen 17:1). In his relational involvement in covenant relationship, on the basis of tāmiym (i.e. being whole, not perfect), Abraham’s identity was distinguished as “righteousness” (Gen 15:6; Gal 3:6), whereby his integrity was established with God. How so?

Abraham’s relational response and involvement in covenant relationship could only be whole according to God’s terms for the relationship. Righteousness, to emphasize, is not about being perfect but identifies the whole of who, what and how a person is. Because of righteousness, this person can be counted on by God (and others) to function in relationship together as that whole person, nothing less and no substitutes. Even for whole-ly God, as the psalmist illuminated, “Righteousness goes before him and makes the relational path for his steps” (Ps 85:13). Therefore, the person’s righteousness safeguards the heart of that whole person’s integrity (Prov 13:6). Without righteousness, that person’s integrity in relationship is always in doubt, making the identity of who, what and how that person is questionable if not in dispute.

This is the background for the ironic claim that the above Pharisees made about the integrity of Jesus’ identity. Moreover, they not only identified the whole of Jesus’ person, but they also claimed paradoxically that Jesus’ identity was uncommon—without being influenced or shaped by the common of human contexts (“defer to no one…with partiality”). In other words, however dubious, they distinguished Jesus’ whole-ly person and affirmed the integrity of his identity as whole and uncommon; in so doing, they exposed their own so-called righteousness and the variable integrity of their own identity in their practice of covenant relationship, which they didn’t engage vulnerably with their whole persons. How many Christians live in their irony and function in their paradox?

In his definitive manifesto for discipleship, Jesus corrected the ambiguity or shallowness of the identity of his followers, without partiality or distinctions for their diverse condition (Mt 5:13-16). Whatever their diversity, Jesus made it imperative that their righteousness has to be clearly distinguished beyond the so-called righteousness of those in the faith (Mt 5:20). That is, their righteousness cannot be influenced or shaped by reductionism, in order for the integrity of their identity to distinguish (as in transformed, not re-formed) the whole-ly in their ontology and function (as the Beatitudes compose). Reductionism underlies the variable integrity of Christian identity by subtly composing its diversity with secondary matters (such as contextualization) over the primary of whole-ly identity. The integrity of the identity of Jesus’ whole-ly disciples is integrated by necessity with righteousness, so that the whole of who, what and how they are without the veil integrally functions distinguished with-in the Uncommon, and thus distinguished from and beyond the common.

All of this converges in relational terms for Jesus’ disciples and has relational progression in the dynamic of nothing less and no substitutes. Our identity cannot have integrity without the righteousness composed by God’s relational terms. Jesus made definitive the pivotal fourth Beatitude to integrate the seven Beatitudes of our identity formation: “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for their persons and identity will be filled whole-ly” (Mt 5:6). Therefore, unequivocally, integrity integrated with righteousness is the primary priority for all his disciples, distinguishing this relational progression:

The integrity of his disciples’ identity is based only on the relational response of those who “seek first to be relationally involved in the relational context of God’s family and the relational process of his righteousness in family love” (Mt 6:33), whereby their integral identity as whole-ly disciples emerges with nothing less than the whole who they are and unfolds with no substitutes for the uncommon whose they are. And this relational progression unfolds in the ongoing change to the new distinguished whole with-in the Uncommon, the integral integrity of which “will be given to you whole-ly.”

The relational progression of Mary’s relational response and involvement as the whole-ly Jesus’ disciple unmistakably distinguished her integral identity beyond the contextualized identity of all the other disciples, and distinguished her person deeper than their commonized identity. In her ongoing change to the new, her integral identity magnified the whole who she was and the uncommon whose she was as his whole-ly disciple. This is the relational outcome of the whole gospel with-in which Jesus wants all his disciples to experience progression. This essential relational progression, however, does not unfold unless his disciples contend with the ongoing influence of reductionism in the common’s surrounding context. The most prominent source of the common’s influence is culture, which Mary consistently countered while the others accepted.

The identity that Jesus embodied and enacted for the gospel, and that Mary embodied and enacted to follow him, was always in contention with the surrounding culture as well as in conflict with its anthropology defining persons and determining relationship in reduced ontology and function. That is the nature of human culture, which many Christians assume to be neutral at least, or even positive at best. If that were the reality, why did Jesus always have to contend with the surrounding culture?

Jesus stated unequivocally that he doesn’t belong to the common in the human context, and that the identity of his disciples also doesn’t belong to the common in their surrounding contexts (Jn 17:14,16). Identity signifies where it belongs, and our identity signifies either to whom or to what we belong. This belonging converges within the scope of culture to identify its attachment, and we have to understand the dynamics involved here.

Culture is present in every human context, however culture is defined and whatever is the shape of a human context. Culture also has a particular identity, and, depending on your definition of culture, culture promotes an identity for the participants (active or passive) in that context (either belonging to or by association). When culture generates the identity of its participants, this becomes an ongoing issue of identity formation and maintenance—particularly as contexts intersect, which is the norm in human life and practice. This has become an intense issue as the world’s population has increasingly migrated and globalization has become dominant.

I define culture as inseparable from identity and use the following working definition in our discussion:

Culture is the life and practice (in its various expressions) of a collective group (formal or informal, large or small) of persons, which relatively both defines who and what they are and determines how they function, thereby being a primary source of their identity. Culture is not about an individual person but a social dynamic of persons who belong and/or identify in a context together.

At its earliest stages of development, culture emerges from the life and practice of those persons gathered together, thus culture is defined and determined by them. As that culture is established, its shape remains consistent or firm, with ongoing minor modifications. In the subsequent process of its life and practice, culture essentially takes on a functional “life” of its own to shape its participants; that is to say, those persons become defined by their culture, and thus how they function is also determined by their culture. To be contrary is to go against the norms of culture, or, in other words, be counter-cultural. Immigrants to a different culture, for example, face the decision to assimilate into the new surrounding culture or to remain different and incur the consequences. Christians are faced with the same decision, only on a deeper level and with greater consequences, because we belong to a different culture than our surrounding contexts.

Moreover, since we all participate in some type of collective group, we are all part of a particular culture that defines our person and determines how we function—relatively speaking, of course. To this extent we are never free of culture and always apply our culture to our activities, even in biblical interpretation and in following Jesus and practicing church. This possessing influence, with its enveloping bias, emerges as the significant issue of Jesus’ engagement with culture, which we will discuss with the need to understand the particular cultural lens we bring to this discussion.

If we follow Jesus not merely as believers but as his whole-ly disciples, we have to embrace how Jesus engaged culture to be “where I am” (Jn 12:26) so that our identity will belong to “just as I belong” (Jn 17:14,16). Our identity will reveal where we belong, and how we function in our identity will determine to what and whom we belong. And if we belong to Jesus, we also have to embrace the difference that Jesus’ identity had with the common. This immeasurable difference composed his minority identity in essential difference with the common majority—the unavoidable identity that always distinguishes his uncommon identity in all human contexts. In our discipleship as whole-ly disciples, we cannot follow Jesus without embracing deeply how Jesus engaged culture in distinct ongoing function; and we cannot embrace deeply how Jesus engaged culture without embracing in our heart the difference of his minority identity.

How Jesus engaged a culture in a particular context was always first with his own culture. Put in relational terms, Jesus always looked at culture theologically because that was his identity: who, what and how he is in the context and process of the whole-ly Trinity. This was not unusual since engaging another culture from one’s own culture is an assumption by which all persons engage a different culture. Thus, these are assumptions of our own that we have to understand and account for, even as we seek to further understand and more deeply follow Jesus (along with his culture).

To say that Jesus looked at culture theologically should not be separated from the function of his identity. Foremost, his theological lens was not about doctrine, propositions of static truth or systems of beliefs and values; though his lens was certainly theologically orthodox (not in a gospel-speak, salvation-speak sense), it was always in conjoint function with orthopraxy (i.e. whole-ly life and practice) in the trinitarian relational context and process for relationship together. Jesus functionally engaged culture not only in orthodoxy but with orthopraxy, with the latter at times appearing to contradict the former, which was an ongoing source of controversy in many of his interactions—notably in a so-called orthodox religious context since his practice was perceived often as counter-cultural. Yet, Jesus’ theological engagement of culture was not for the end result of orthodoxy, or even orthopraxy, but only for this relational purpose: the whole outcome of new relationship together and being whole distinguished from the common. Thus, his engagement was always as communicative action of God’s thematic relational response to make whole the human condition (cf. Jn 12:46-47). In other words, he saw culture through the lens of God’s perception and desires, and this primacy defined and determined his response. For Jesus, any other engagement with culture was secondary and should neither define nor determine what is primary or its shape—as Jesus demonstrated at the wedding in Cana (Jn 2:1-11).

By embodying God’s communicative action in the contexts of the world, Jesus did not engage culture “to condemn” (krino, to discriminate between good and evil) the identity it generates “but to make whole” (sozo, Jn 3:17) its life and practice influenced by reductionism. By the nature of its source, reductionism has always functioned against God’s whole and all wholeness in the human context since creation in the primordial garden. The reductionism in culture specifically involved fragmenting the ontology of the whole person created in the image of the whole-ly God for the relationships together created in likeness of the relational ontology of the Trinity, therefore which are necessary to restore to integral function to be whole. In all its diversity, culture in the surrounding context cannot cultivate this wholeness even though it may promote it in diverse ways.

Along with his identity as the light, Jesus’ full humanity as the Son of man also fully affirms this creation. By the earthly human life made evident in Jesus’ whole person, human life is sanctified (made uncommonly distinct from the common) in a qualitative distinct practice that is imperative for all his followers to live and experience to be whole as God’s family (as he prayed, Jn 17:19). Furthermore, their sanctified life and practice is necessary to be able to live whole in the surrounding cultural context for the world to “believe” (trust) and “know” (experience) the whole-ly God extended to them to be part of, and thus no longer “to be apart” from (as he further prayed, Jn 17:21-23). Only the intrusion of this ontology and function distinguish God’s whole-ly family in the world.

Any reduction in life and practice of the whole person and those persons’ relationships together need to be made whole to fulfill who, what and how they are as God’s new creation. Therefore, the reduction of what defines human persons (e.g. in a comparative process of human performance to stratify human worth or value) needs to be redefined (by transformation, not re-formation) for persons to be made whole. Likewise, the reduction of human relationships from qualitative function and significance (e.g. by diminishing intimate relational involvement or promoting barriers to relational belonging) needs to be transformed for the relationships together necessary to be whole. We need to recognize how these reductions are directly composed by the surrounding culture.

The uncommon whole of Jesus’ person, accordingly, functioned to engage culture in the surrounding context only on his uncommon basis for this whole purpose: (1) redeem its defining influence from reductionism, (2) transform its counter-relational work of reductionism, and (3) reconcile persons in transformed relationships to make whole the human relational condition “to be apart” from God’s whole. These three interrelated dimensions were enacted by Jesus in his ongoing approach to engaging culture, for the relational progression to this whole relational outcome.

Jesus’ engagement of culture for his purpose to be, live and make whole involved a relational process; conjointly, this relational process was specific to the relational context of his identity and ontology in the whole-ly Trinity. The dynamic involvement of this relational process cannot be categorized by typologies of the relation of Jesus and culture. The classic typology of Richard Niebuhr, for example, is of initial interest, yet this is a static framework insufficient to account for Jesus’ intrusion into culture.^{^[3]} This includes variations or refinements of his typology.^{^[4]} The dynamic relational involvement of Jesus in the surrounding contexts of the world was an ongoing process of engaging culture both to be whole and to make whole, which integrally required being vulnerable with his person and intrusive in his relationships.

A different framework is needed to account for the variable nature of this process and to understand the whole of Jesus’ various actions engaging culture. This involves three issues that Jesus ongoingly addressed to help us define why and how he engaged culture and aspects of it. Basic to his approach, Jesus vulnerably involved his whole person in the life and practice of a culture to function to be whole and to make whole. Therefore, the integrating theme “to be whole” defined his actions engaging culture, and that meant his actions were contingent on one or more of three qualifying issues involving a particular culture’s life and practice:

Only Jesus’ own culture has complete congruence in wholeness. Aspects of other cultures, however, may involve more than one of these qualifying issues, and thus engaging various aspects of a culture’s life and practice tends to involve an interaction of these qualifying issues. Culture then cannot be responded to in its surrounding context with a predetermined set of behavioral responses—for example, to presume assimilation or to assume counter-culturalism—but only addressed predisposed with the relational involvement to be whole and to make whole. This is how Jesus engaged culture and why.

In the process of cultural engagement, Jesus demonstrated the following: In his whole identity Jesus appears to transcend culture (cf. Niebuhr’s categories, “Christ against culture”), yet while relationally involved in the surrounding cultural context (cf. “Christ in paradox” or “Christ of culture”) distinctly with his minority identity (cf. “Christ above culture”) in order to make it whole (cf. “Christ the transformer of culture”). The relational interaction of his whole identity with his minority identity (signifying his whole-ly identity) constitutes the qualitative distinction necessary to be distinguished whole in the surrounding cultural context, without which there is neither the basis to make whole any culture’s life and practice nor the significance to be compelling for the human condition.

The ongoing process of engaging culture both to be whole and to make whole involves the process of vulnerable and intrusive relational involvement enacted by Jesus. This was made evident in his various encounters for us to “Follow me.” Our discipleship is challenged to make the distinctions of where our identity belongs and to what or whom our persons, relationships and churches are in likeness. If we want to “Follow me” whole-ly, we have to understand Jesus’ practice with culture in order to “be where I am.”

How Jesus dealt with culture in everyday life was crucial for what would determine how functioned in that context. His uncommon relational path illuminates the way for us to follow him. Our first glimpse of Jesus engaging culture in the surrounding context during his public ministry was at a wedding in Cana (Jn 2:2-11). Reviewing that situation in terms of culture, Jesus made evident the practice of his whole person (who, what and how he is). This demonstrated how he functioned in the surrounding human contexts and in those public social interactions.

In this particular human context, Jesus was involved in three interrelated areas: (1) relationship with his mother Mary, (2) the sociocultural context, and (3) relationship with his Father. The consequence of these areas of involvement helps us understand how Jesus engaged culture: first, “to be whole” in the identity of his own culture in the common’s surrounding context, then “to make whole” in response to some aspect of the human condition existing “to be apart” from the whole—both of which unfold from ongoing involvement in RC. He quickly established distinction from his surrounding cultural identity defined with Mary by simply addressing her as “woman” (gyne, general term for woman with no other significance). This distinction is specific to the relational context that defined his whole person, which always remained primary over any secondary context such as their relationship in this situation. Accordingly, Jesus redefined the nature of his involvement with Mary from the human cultural context to his trinitarian relational context of family.

While Jesus had tension with Mary’s human cultural context of family earlier at age twelve (Lk 2:11-52), he still affirmed its life and practice (v.51) since it was at least compatible or overlapped with him “to be whole” (as in qualifying issue 1, above). As he began his public ministry, however, further qualitative distinction was necessary for the clarity of his identity to be whole in the surrounding context. This distinction fully progressed when Jesus publicly made definitive his family in the trinitarian relational context (Mt 12:46-50)—which no doubt created “culture shock” for both his biological family and the surrounding Jewish context by redefining a basic foundation of their culture based on birth and descent. To say the least, the function of his identity was out of the ordinary and thus contended with the surrounding context shaped by culture as well as by its anthropology defining persons and relationships.

Jesus further clarified the function of his whole person with his question to Mary: “What is that to you and to me?” (Jn 2:4) What defined Jesus was always in tension with efforts in the surrounding context to redefine him by reducing his whole person. Mary merely acted in who and what she was defined by based on that cultural context’s norm for participation in its extended family-community identity. That in itself was not the issue in their interaction. Her request for Jesus’ participation in this cultural practice was compatible (not congruent) for Jesus only on a secondary basis, the terms of which would be acceptable as long as they didn’t take away from or substitute for the primary defining his whole-ly identity by his own culture. Jesus’ tension with Mary was not about her specific cultural practice in this situation (his room for flexibility) but about her attempt to redefine him in her secondary terms. By adding “My hour has not yet come,” Jesus wanted Mary to know that even in what may appear to be a neutral participation in culture, what his priorities were, and what and who defined him, were determined by his Father. Critical for being distinguished in the surrounding context, “what is that to me” cannot be defined and determined by “what is that to you.” This illuminates a functional paradigm by which Jesus engaged culture in the surrounding context—engagement which consciously required ongoing involvement in the process of integrating priorities (PIP), namely integrating the secondary into the primary.

This is a necessary function in order to be whole and not to be reduced in identity and ontology by a culture in the surrounding context. Jesus maintained the whole of who, what and how he is—the integrity of his identity integrated with righteousness—by the primacy of ongoing relational involvement with his Father, and with the Spirit in the whole-ly Trinity. His ongoing relational involvement with his Father served as the crucial reference point for his involvement in sociocultural contexts (like the wedding culture and the necessity of wine) and with relationships in those contexts (like with Mary). This composes the triangulation process for us to follow in order to navigate culture in our surrounding contexts: Jesus used his reference point in the Father to define and determine his engagement with culture and his involvement in the surrounding contexts of the world, so that he could be whole in order to make whole. Triangulation served to give clarity to his identity as the light of the world and relational significance to “his glory” (as in Jn 2:11) vulnerably disclosed in the world in response to the human condition for the outcome only of relationship together in God’s whole family, for which participation in extended family-community as above can never substitute.

This relational process of triangulated engagement of culture is further demonstrated as Jesus was involved with a pluralized identity of Judaism in Jerusalem. When Jesus addressed the identity of his followers in the Sermon on the Mount, he made it imperative that who, what and how they were needed to function beyond the reductionists and their practice of reductionism (as noted earlier, Mt 5:20). Those particular reductionists were various teachers of the law (scribes) and Pharisees, neither all of the Pharisees as commonly assumed nor the sum of Judaism. Thus, as the above three qualifying issues involving Judaism’s complex life and practice emerged and interacted, Jesus accordingly engaged their “pluralistic” culture in Jerusalem. Yet, tension and conflict with reductionism was notable, which will always happen in the presence and function of the whole. And Jesus’ function in his whole-ly identity demonstrated this life and practice as he engaged those reductionists in the culture of their surrounding context.

Similar to the existing diversity of Christian identity today, the Judaism Jesus would engage lacked a united identity. Some focused mainly on a religious identity, others more so on an ethnic identity, with neither being mutually exclusive and both interrelated with social and economic factors. While Israel’s national identity was underlying (even a source of national pride), this tended to fragment or pluralize identity in Judaism (e.g., Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Zealots).^{^[5]} Thus, life and practices in the cultural context of Judaism lacked wholeness—namely specific to its historic roots in the whole of the covenant, which can also be said of the global church. Rather than a monolithic Judaism, its variable condition was the shape of the context that Jesus engaged with his whole-ly person in the triangulation process (e.g. Jn 5:19; 8:28; Lk 4:14), and thus he vulnerably involved the whole-ly God to make it whole.

Jewish culture obviously was not foreign to Jesus the Jew, yet his engagement of Judaism’s life and practices was a unique intersection as if it were. This would be expected for anyone bearing a minority identity, as the source of belonging for Jesus’ identity becomes distinguished. Thus, the three qualifying issues provide us with the basis for Jesus’ various actions as he engaged Judaism in Jerusalem. John’s Gospel includes most of the narratives of these encounters in Jesus’ later Judean ministry, in order to provide the understanding of their importance in the big picture of the whole-ly God’s thematic action both in covenant fulfillment to Israel and in relational response to the human condition to make them whole.

Jesus was certainly in congruence with covenant life and compatible with some practices in Judaism that notably observed the major pilgrimages to the Jerusalem temple. That is, congruent with covenant relationship and its compatible relational function to come before the Lord—not as obligatory religious code but in response to covenant relationship together, namely in the covenant of love. For Judaism as God’s people, this was its culture’s life and practice “to be whole,” which Jesus both affirmed and participated in, as we find him going to Jerusalem to observe Passover (and the Feast of Unleavened Bread, Jn 2:12-25). In this critical encounter with culture that Jesus neither took for granted nor assumed to be positive, the fragmentary practice he saw at the temple was not an isolated incident and needs to be seen in its full context.

The current system of sacrifice had become an economic enterprise reflecting the prevailing priestly leadership, though not the sum of Judaism—and should not be used to stereotype Judaism and discriminate against it. On the one hand, Jesus’ involvement in the temple signified the compatible nature of Judaism’s covenant practice. What had emerged at the temple, however, was incompatible practice with religious, social and economic repercussions: access to God was subtly restricted, a social system of stratification created inequitable participation with some having a deficit identity, comparative relations for those with less economic resources were marginalized, and even denied access to participate in God’s house. This was incompatible with being whole, thus in conflict with Jesus, and had to be responded to with no room for flexibility or negotiation; it was a condition not only apart from God’s whole but countering “to be whole,” therefore that had to be decisively redeemed.

Clearly and accordingly, on the other hand, Jesus’ action in the temple constituted his involvement necessary to redeem it (Jn 2:14-17) to make the house of God’s dwelling whole for covenant relationship together for all persons without false distinctions (par. Mk 11:17, cf. the church in Acts 15:8-9). At the same time, he remained in ongoing tension with certain segments of Judaism (the reductionists) who challenged the source of his minority identity, thereby the validity of his action (Jn 2:18). Their demand, in one sense, had some merit given the radical extent of Jesus’ action; yet, the main issue focused only on what was perceived to be counter-cultural—even that apparent contradiction with orthodoxy noted earlier. Moreover, his intrusive engagement in this context, integral to his vulnerable relational involvement to make whole, was also in tension with those receptive to him because of their reductionism; thus, Jesus did not allow his person to be defined and determined by them (Jn 2:23-25).

This temple encounter demonstrated Jesus’ intrusive and vulnerable engagement of the cultural context of Judaism with various actions based on one or more particular qualifying issues. He demonstrated how these issues interact to preclude a predetermined set of behavioral responses but only to constitute predisposed relational involvement to be whole and to make whole. This provides us with a working understanding of Jesus’ relation to culture, and further helps us fully understand the significance of his subsequent engagement with Judaism. This is especially important for how we need to address the diversity in Christian practice today, and to account for how congruent we are as his disciples and to be accountable for how compatible our discipleship is with his relational involvement in and for wholeness.

In the next encounter sometime later, Jesus returned to Jerusalem for another feast of the Jews (unspecified, possibly Feast of Tabernacles, Jn 5:1-47). Once again, his involvement reflected the compatible covenant practice of Judaism. Yet, they needed to understand further and more deeply that covenant practice is not an end in itself (namely for the self-determination of their identity) but only for covenant relationship together to be whole. To clarify this distinction for them, Jesus engaged their culture with his own culture, that is, with his whole-ly identity composed by the integrated function of his full identity of belonging and his minority identity in their context. Consequently, his practice to make whole by healing (hygies, vv.6-9) appeared to contradict orthodox life and practice in Judaism, and this became a major controversy among certain Jews since he practiced wholeness on the Sabbath (vv.10-16).

For the reductionists, it was clearly simple: Jesus broke the law basic to the cultural life and practice of Judaism. On the limited basis and from the biased lens of the letter of the law, they had a valid point to raise but insufficient basis for their position. God’s law was the terms for covenant relationship together to be whole and should not be reduced to a code for national identity, self-determination or justification. Yet, in terms of Jesus’ engagement of their cultural life and practice, unlike the temple cleansing earlier, there was partial overlap present “to be whole” allowing room for flexibility to at least discuss the significance of the Sabbath to be whole as well as to make whole (see his polemic about the same issue, Jn 7:23). For the current situation, Jesus vulnerably responded to their attacks by making definitive his own culture and whole-ly identity: to make whole is his Father’s ongoing relational work and his also (Jn 5:17); he disclosed the source of his identity and ontology (5:19-23) and the significance of his salvific work (5:24-30); and he clearly delineated the alternatives for their life and practice to the choice between the whole-ly God or reductionism (5:31-47, noting v.39). Any variation of the whole, even well-intentioned or inadvertently, is a form of reductionism; and this form exists in subtle diversity. With that being said, he gave them the responsibility to decide.

After his ministry in Galilee to purposely create space from the reductionists in Judea, Jesus returned to Jerusalem for the specific Jewish Feast of Tabernacles (associated with the period in the wilderness living in tents, Jn 7:1-38). His return, however, was not determined by his biological brothers’ misguided challenge; his involvement in the surrounding context was always defined and determined by the triangulation process with his Father (7:2-9). Partial overlap continued to allow room for flexibility to extend his dialogue with Judaism, even as the tension grows in this cultural context. Yet, his purpose and function to make whole appears more directed and urgent. As his Father determined for him, his involvement in this compatible covenant practice did not emerge until mid-week of the week-long Feast (7:10,14). While this has the appearance of caution, triangulation provides guidance only by his Father’s purpose (“who sent me,” 7:16,28-29) to make whole. This involved God’s communicative action, which also necessitated intensifying his intrusion into this context of partially overlapping Judaic life and practices—that is, specifically intruding on the aspects of life and practice needing to be made whole.

This intrusion into Judaism’s “pluralized” culture (i.e. among themselves) involved God’s communicative action in Jesus’ teaching. Yet, Jesus taught not for the issue of orthodoxy but for the relationship to be whole (7:15-19). Again, he compellingly clarified the Torah as only God’s terms for covenant relationship together to be God’s whole (7:21-23) and made definitive his basis to disclose this relationship together necessary to be whole (7:27-29). And this dialogue in Jesus’ intrusive engagement of Judaism further precipitated the growing tension between reductionism in their culture and God’s whole: “How…such learning without having studied” (v.15, NIV); “you have a demon” (v.20); “we know where this man is from, but when the Messiah comes, no one will know where he is from” (v.27)—all accusations made in juxtaposition to Jesus’ imperative “Stop judging by mere appearances and make a right judgment” (v.24, cf. Jn 8:15).

As this dialogue continued and the tension escalated, Jesus further impressed on them the urgency of their choice between the diverse substitutes in reductionism and the whole-ly God (7:30-38). On the last day of the Feast, Jesus deepened his involvement to vulnerably make his person accessible directly to them for the intimate relationship to be whole (7:37-38)—pointing to the fulfillment of God’s covenant promise for relationship together and the living water associated with this Feast to end the wandering in the wilderness of reductionism (Zech 14:8,16-21). In God’s communicative action, the whole-ly God was vulnerably present and intimately involved—indeed, whole-ly embodied only by Jesus’ intrusive relational path.

Jesus engaged culture in his uncommon identity and function to be whole, and thus in his purpose to make whole. By the nature of his function and purpose, notably as the light, it was inevitable that the heightened tension with reductionism would result in conflict with the dogmatic reductionists prevailing in the religious culture. This was the fluid condition of Jesus’ engagement with Judaism, which nevertheless neither defined nor determined who, what and how he was in this cultural context. His priorities were always integrated into the primary by his ongoing relational involvement in triangulation with the Trinity to distinguish his whole-ly identity with RC illuminating the difference. Therefore, his further engagement with Judaism even intensified his whole-ly identity and function as the light of the world.

When Jesus engaged them again at another time, there was still room for dialogue in this fluid condition of Judaism’s partial overlap toward the whole (Jn 8:12-59). In his vulnerable involvement Jesus openly shared in dialogue the following: his identity and function as the light (8:12), thereby further engaging this context in his whole-ly identity—which certain Pharisees challenged him about his life and practice (8:13); this then necessitated identifying the source of his life and practice (8:14-18)—whereby they challenged the source of his cultural identity and ontology (8:19a,25a); to which his identity and ontology were vulnerably disclosed (8:19b,23,25b-26) and the purpose of his life and practice (in word and deed) made clearly evident (8:27-29). This room for flexibility by Jesus to dialogue nurtured some in that context for the relational outcome to be whole (8:30). To them, and any receptive reductionists, he made conclusive the need to be redeemed to be made whole (8:31-32). This further precipitated the relational consequence of the clear distinction and dynamic between the two alternatives: the whole intrinsic to God or the reductionism inherent of Satan, and therefore their incompatibility and conflict (8:33-59); and any subtle variation from the whole always signified a form of reductionism. Here we see the distinct difference between the essential dynamic of nothing less and no substitutes and the reverse dynamic of anything less and any substitutes.

Even under difficult conditions, the light continued to intrude on the cultural context of Judaism to be whole and to make whole (see Jn 9:1-7,35-39; 10:22-39) for covenant relationship together in the whole-ly God’s family (fulfilling the covenant of love, Dt 7:9)—Jesus’ distinguished vulnerable involvement even to the dismay and misperception of his disciples (Jn 11:7-16). This relational outcome, or even relational consequence, is the effect on reductionism in a culture’s life and practice that the whole-ly identity and function as the light of the world has. Whatever the qualifying issues may be about a culture, this is ongoingly the light’s identity of uncommon belonging to be whole and its function to make whole. All his disciples need to embrace in “Follow me” that the identity of the light has clarity only as a function of whole-ly identity triangulating with his Father to determine his involvement—nothing less and no substitutes, just as his Father sent him into the world. Without this vulnerable intrusion specific to the culture of the surrounding context, the light becomes ambiguous or is extinguished and thus not distinguished—just as churches were critiqued in Jesus’ post-ascension discourse for church wholeness (Rev 2-3, notably in Thyatira). In the absence of his minority identity for all his disciples, their identity as the light of God’s whole-ly family is obscured and thus assimilated, co-opted or embedded in the surrounding culture of the common (Mt 5:14-16).

This is the bigger picture into which John’s Gospel contextualizes the narratives of Jesus’ relational involvement with the life and practice of culture as the embodied whole of the Word of God’s communicative action. As the embodied Word, Jesus engaged culture not by merely contextualizing his involvement in a culture’s life and practice, but with uncommon significance he contextualized a culture within his relational context of the Trinity and into his context’s relational process of intimate relationship together in family love—the qualitative relational significance of his own culture composed by the Trinity, the what and who of his belonging. This is the indispensable process of reciprocating contextualization integrated with the irreplaceable process of triangulation, the integral function of which needs to correct the diversity of our discipleship and clarify the current missiological practice of contextualization.

It is simply vital to understand the application of RC in our surrounding contexts, and to embrace this as a relational process in necessary integral function with triangulation. This integrated relational process is necessary for the qualitative distinction in the surrounding common’s context in order not to be defined or determined by the common’s function; and culture is its most subtle and seductive influence on the ontology and function of persons and relationships in the church. Irreducibly and nonnegotiably then, the relational process of triangulation with RC converges with the three qualifying issues for the functional involvement necessary both to be whole and to make whole in a culture’s life and practice.

If we cannot distinguish our whole-ly identity in the surrounding culture, then there are two relational consequences that determine the make-up of who, what and how we are:

1. We are not relationally involved in the primacy of “where I am,” and therefore we do not relationally belong “just as I belong”—locating our persons at a relational distance from whole-ly Jesus (even as we claim the gospel), functioning with the veil of the holy partition without progressing together on his intrusive relational path (even as we proclaim the gospel).

2. Accordingly, we have shifted from the primary to become, at best, occupied by the secondary shaped by our surrounding culture, which then defines where we belong (even as members of a church) and determines our ontology and function (even as his servants) in reduced terms of the common—composing our persons as relational orphans and our churches as functional orphanages.

This is the reality of the common’s influence through culture, which we either counter like Mary to “Follow my whole-ly person” or accept like the other disciples keeping relational distance from “where I am whole-ly.”

When Jesus’ biological family wanted urgently to speak to him, he shockingly said that his family does not belong to the common but includes his whole-ly disciples (Mt 12:47-50). Later, he disclosed that “My family is not of the common…my family is of the uncommon” (Jn 18:36). On his intrusive relational path, Jesus consistently distinguished his family as uncommon from all common notions of family, most notably defined by its surrounding culture and determined by its sociocultural norms. He more than intruded on the common notions of family but also fought against their relational order in order for the family of his whole-ly disciples to emerge, progress and mature together (Mt 10:34-39, par. Lk 12:49-53). This is the family that Jesus promised his disciples who “left everything, including their families, and followed you” (Mk 10:23-30)—his whole-ly family in the here and now (Jn 14:23). This promise fulfilled presently by Jesus composes his disciples’ identity in the new relational order, which further unfolds from his family prayer (Jn 17:20-26).

In his intrusive relational path, Jesus was not anti-biological family, whether in extended kinship or nuclear form. Rather he countered the primacy given to it because it was only secondary (not unimportant) for his disciples. The relational path Jesus enacted was the relational progression that constituted his church family—the present relational outcome of the gospel that he saved us to. Therefore, his church family is primary for his disciples. Yet, this primacy is warranted only when the persons composing the church are whole and their function in relationship together as family is determined by the new relational order belonging to Jesus, who embodied and enacted the whole-ly Trinity.

The ontology and function of persons was originally created whole in likeness of the whole-ly Trinity (Gen 1:26-27, including Jesus, Jn 1:2-3), and thus not “to be apart” in their relationships (Gen 2:18). Their relationships were fragmented when their ontology and function were reduced. The wholeness of persons and relationships had to be newly created by their transformation (as in Eph 2:14-15), which now unfolds in the whole-ly Trinity’s new creation family (2:18-22). Wholeness for the person is inseparable from one’s relationships. This means that persons can never be whole by themselves, namely as mere individuals. Therefore, the individual person alone is never sufficient to complete being whole; for the person to be whole as constituted by its created nature (original and new) in the image and likeness of the whole-ly Trinity involves also the relationships together necessary to complete being whole, God’s relational whole as in the Trinity. This integral identity of persons and relationships together in wholeness is disclosed first in the Trinity—as relationally revealed by Jesus—to help us understand our ontology and function in likeness.

No trinitarian person alone is the whole of God. That is, each trinitarian person is whole-ly God but is not complete in being the whole of God apart from the other trinitarian persons; necessarily by its nature only the three trinitarian persons together constitute the relational ontology of the Trinity—in whose likeness human persons have been created and thus must function by its nature to be whole, God’s relational whole. Anything less and any substitutes are reductions of the whole—that is, “to be apart” in ontology and function—thus can never reflect, experience or represent wholeness; at best they are only the ontological simulations and functional illusions from reductionism and its counter-relational work.

On this irreducible basis, then, the reality facing our persons, relationships and churches is this: The wholeness of all our persons, relationships and churches is trinitarian wholeness—nothing less than and no substitutes for the whole-ly Trinity, “so that they all may be whole, as we are whole” (Jn 17:21). This reality is not virtual, an alternative reality or a deniable reality that we can dismiss as a theological construction, since it emerges only face to face distinctly without the veil in the primary context of relationship together.

Yet, there is a diverse condition of persons and relationships occupying the church today. Most function “to be apart” as relational orphans in the common variations of the human relational order. In contrast and conflict, the persons and relationships belonging to Jesus’ church family are whole-ly in ontology and function, and therefore live whole in uncommon relationships together in likeness of the whole-ly Trinity—all of whom and which are distinguished by the uncommon while still in the common (just as Jesus prayed for his family, Jn 17:15,21,23). What unfolds here is the relational progression of Jesus’ whole-ly disciples belonging to his family, whose integral identity is composed and thereby distinguished together in the new relational order.

Therefore, persons are whole only with relationships together, and relationships are whole only with whole persons together. Persons and relationships are whole only together in his church family, and churches today are whole only with whole persons and relationships together—without anything less or any substitutes for either. These integrated dimensions of wholeness compose the new relational order enacted by Jesus with-in the Trinity, which contends with the diverse human orders in surrounding contexts. Thus, this new of what and who challenges the diversity of all of our persons and relationships in the global church today. In relational reality, ‘the new of what’ challenges us, and ‘the new of who’ confronts us with “Where are you in your persons and relationships?” and “What are you doing here in the church today?” And given how our persons and relationships occupy our churches, Jesus keeps knocking on our church doors and pursuing us in our persons and relationships for “how well do we truly know him?”—not in the quantity of referential terms (e.g. as dispensed in the academy) but in the depth of his relational terms, which eludes many church sermons and Bible studies.

In Jesus’ post-ascension critique of churches (Rev 2-3), the majority of these churches were shaped in diverse identities, and their persons and relationships functioned contrary to the new relational order of his whole-ly family. His and the Spirit’s critique is indispensable for our theology and practice today to be whole with-in the Uncommon, by what and who our identity is distinguished as his whole-ly disciples belonging to whole-ly churches, integrated together in his global church family.

The new relational order is not optional for the church family of the whole-ly Trinity. Jesus didn’t enact his whole ontology and function as just an alternative for us to consider. When we focus specifically in relational terms on the various interactions Jesus had with persons, what unfolds is his relational progression in establishing the new relational order of his family. Jesus was not involved in isolated or unrelated encounters; rather he was always relationally involved in the Trinity’s family love for the relational purpose to pursue, embrace and establish persons to belong in his family. The relational outcome was not to belong as mere church members, nor to become just relational orphans without truly belonging to his church family. Furthermore, his whole relational outcome was never optional for those who claimed the Good News, therefore cannot be optional for those occupying the church today.

For example, when Zacchaeus responded face to face in relationship with Jesus—an involvement that was prohibited in the existing relational order of Jesus’ religious culture—the relational outcome wasn’t whether or not Zacchaeus wanted to belong in God’s family. Jesus simply declared that this marginalized or discarded person now belonged (Lk 19:9). And based on his adoption, Zacchaeus’ new identity as a son in God’s whole-ly family came with nonnegotiable relational responsibilities that family members are accountable for to each other.

Additionally, in his summary illumination of the big picture of Jesus’ relational progression, John’s Gospel helps us understand the whole relational outcome for all of Jesus’ disciples by recording Jesus’ defining statement on the cross that composes the new relational order, which his disciples are transformed in and thus have relational responsibility for: To his mother, “Woman, here is your son,” and to his beloved disciple John, “Here is your mother” (Jn 19:26-27). We cannot overlook or take lightly the relational significance of his family love communicated in this statement. By countering what was common in the surrounding culture with the whole-ly culture of his family, Jesus was fulfilling what he saved us all to—which is not a mere option for us to consider. In this relational reality (not a dramatization or metaphor) Jesus gives us a partial entrance into salvation's relational outcome by opening the functional door—behind the curtain without the veil, thus demolishing the holy partition—to salvation’s new life and practice.

In this defining moment, circumstances, culture, family and Jesus’ promise to his disciples (specifically Mk 10:29-30) converge for those persons to make this intimate relational connection. The initial relational outcome forms the functional roots for the relational growth and development of his church as family. Building with the persons who truly constituted his family (see Mt 12:47-50), Jesus demonstrated the functional significance of being his family in what needs to be understood as an interaction defining for all his followers, yet is often underemphasized or overlooked.

Apparently, Mary had been a widow for a while. In the Mediterranean world of biblical times, a widow was in a precarious position (like orphans), and so it was for Mary, particularly when her eldest and thus primary son (culturally speaking) was about to die. Their culture called for the eldest son to make provision for parents when they could no longer provide for themselves. The kinship family (by blood and law) had this responsibility. Though a widow, in Mary’s case she still had other sons and daughters to care for her (Mk 6:3). Why, then, did Jesus delegate this responsibility to someone outside their immediate family?

Though circumstances, culture and family converge on this scene, they do not each exert the same amount of influence. We cannot let contextual considerations limit our understanding of this defining point in the relational progression of his followers. Jesus wasn’t fulfilling his duty as the eldest son, nor bound by the circumstances. As he had consistently demonstrated throughout the incarnation, Jesus was taking his followers beyond culture and circumstances, even beyond family as we commonly view it. As the embodied whole-ly Trinity, his whole-ly life and practice constituted function beyond reductionism, which he expected also of his followers in order to participate in his new covenant family (Mt 5:20).

Jesus’ full trinitarian relational context of family and relational process of family love was clearly illuminated in his painful condition yet sensitive relational involvement with Mary and John; again, this should not be reduced by the drama of the moment or the obligation of the situation. Though Jesus was in anguish and those closest to him were deeply distressed, this unimaginable interaction took place because Jesus functionally embodied and relationally enacted the family love of the whole-ly Trinity. In the most touching moment on the cross, Jesus teaches us the relational reality of what being his family means: how to see each other, how to be involved with each other, and how the individual person is affirmed in submitting to him for family together.

For Jesus, family involvement was based on agape involvement, so being his family cannot be understood from our conventional perceptions of family involvement or by our conditioned feelings of obligation, and such sentiments of love. Despite his circumstances, Jesus focused on Mary and John with the deepest agape involvement and affection (phileo, cf. Jn 5:20, Dt 7:7): “Here is your son,” “Here is your mother.” How was he telling them to see each other? How was he saying to be involved with each other? How was the individual person affirmed in submitting to him?

Jesus gave his followers new eyes with which to see each other—beyond circumstances, culture, blood and legal ties, social status. He redefined his family to be relationship-specific to his Father (Mt 12:47-50). This is how he wants us to see each other, and how he saw Mary. It seems certain that Mary was not merely Jesus’ earthly mother but increasingly his follower. She was not at odds with Jesus (though she certainly must have had mixed feelings) during his earthly ministry, as were his brothers. She was always there for him in her role as mother but more importantly she was now there with him as one who did the Father’s will—thus, as follower, daughter, sister. This was the Mary at the crucifixion.

Just as Jesus didn’t merely see Mary as his earthly mother, a widow, a female, he didn’t merely see John as a disciple, a special friend. They were his Father’s daughter and son, his sister and brother (cf. Mt 28:10; Heb 2:11), his family together in the relational progression. And that is how he wants us to be involved with each other, not stopping short at any point on this progression—no matter how well we have been servants together, nor how much we have shared as friends. This deeply touching interaction was Jesus’ involvement with and response to his family. It was the beautiful outworking of family love in the reciprocal relational process together of being family and building it. This involves the dynamic of nothing less and no substitutes, just as Jesus lived and went to the cross. Persons in likeness live the whole function of salvation’s new life and practice in the present.

For this unequivocal purpose and essential outcome, Jesus’ action was just as much for John’s benefit as it was for Mary—both in provision and opportunity. In reciprocal response to Jesus, John acted beyond being merely a disciple, even a friend, and took Mary into “his own” (idios, one’s own, denotes special relationship, Jn 19:27). He didn’t just take her into his house to be merely a household member; he embraced Mary as his own mother (or kinship sister). She must have embraced him also as her son (or kinship brother). In response to what each of them let go of in order to follow Jesus, he promised them an even greater family beyond what existed (Mk 10:29-30). True to his words as ever, he fulfilled his promise to them initially in this down payment. This is the relational outcome in the present for each individual who submits to him to participate in his family. No greater satisfaction of being accepted, no fulfillment of the individual’s self-worth, no certainty of one’s place and belonging can be experienced by the individual person without the relational significance of the whole of his new covenant family composing his new creation church in the new relational order.

As the functional key, Jesus’ action here demonstrated the relationships of love necessary to be the whole-ly Trinity’s new covenant family with family love (both agape and phileo), and this initial experience constituted the roots of his church as family. Moreover, this relationally experienced reality signified the ongoing fulfillment of his covenant promise to his followers (Mk 10:29-30) beyond what they could imagine. The essential reality of this whole relational outcome becomes distinguished in the present by the whole function of his church family in the new relational order, whereby the whole-ly church’s persons and relationships integrally enact the whole gospel embodied by whole-ly Jesus for all to belong to the whole-ly Trinity’s family (Jn 17:21-23; Eph 2:14-22).

The ontology and function of the church in the new relational order emerges definitively from Jesus’ family prayer (Jn 17). Based on his prayer, the global church is one, not a diversity of many churches. For the global church to be one it must be whole by the nature of its likeness to the Trinity, rather than a collection of fragmentary parts. Like the Trinity, all the persons and relationships of the global church must be whole persons in whole relationships together rather than based on their variable surrounding contexts. Accordingly for the global church, the variable integrity of their diverse condition no longer would be in likeness of the whole persons in whole relationships together constituting the Trinity. In practice if not in theology, our existing diverse condition reflects a likeness shaped more by the surrounding context, which then makes evident belonging to a common culture over belonging to the whole-ly Trinity’s family.

For the global church to be in likeness of the Trinity, its persons and relationships must by necessity (without option or negotiation) be constituted by the new relational order established by whole-ly Jesus in the dynamic of nothing less and no substitutes. Belonging in this condition then, we would not be confronted with the critique “Wake up…for I have not found your function complete [fulfilled whole, pleroo] in the sight of the whole-ly Trinity” (Rev 3:2).

The new relational order is not a separatist order isolated from human contexts. On the contrary, it functions with direct relational involvement in human contexts, but not according to the existing order of those contexts, in order to bring change to persons and relationships—which may require changing that existing (old) order, or at least its contextualized or commonized bias influencing persons and relationships. The new intersects the old in the relational progression of Jesus’ intrusive relational path. The relational progression of the change he enacted always engaged persons from inner out. By engaging the whole person with his whole person, Jesus enacted the theological anthropology (countering the existing anthropology) necessary to address our human relational condition and to transform our persons and relationships in two essential ways:

1. The whole person from inner out cannot be engaged by outer-in distinctions of what a person does or has (or doesn’t do or have). These distinctions are the basis in human relations for a comparative order (structure and/or system) that measures persons on this scale and thereby designates them to a particular level in this comparative order. Obviously, the higher we are the better off and the lower the worse off. To whatever extent, we all participate in this comparative process (cf. the early disciples, Lk 9:46; 22:24), which exposes an underlying reduced theological anthropology that counters Jesus’ whole theological anthropology. By engaging the whole person from inner out, Jesus disregarded all human distinctions and equalized all persons from their comparative value. Then, he redeemed persons from the reduced ontology and function of those distinctions, so that their comparative worth will be equalized from inner out as whole persons—free from the veil of distinctions that occupied them from outer in. The relational outcome also transformed their relationships from this comparative process to be equalized together in wholeness, without which their persons and relationships could not be whole and function whole. Therefore, Jesus transformed persons and relationships from their deficit condition belonging to a comparative process vulnerably to their whole condition of relational belonging in the process of equalization. Being equalized, however, is only the first essential step in their transformation. Integral to the equalization of our persons and relationships to complete the relational equation of transformed persons in transformed relationships is this second essential step.

2. The whole-ly Jesus always engaged persons face to face, whether they could receive his person or not. He enacted this relational process by vulnerably involving the heart of his person without his titles, roles and resources, in order to make relational connection in the primacy of face-to-face relationship together. In this relational process, he vulnerably involved his whole person to enact on the cross the relational work needed for direct face-to-face involvement in relationship with the whole-ly God (as in Heb 10:19-22). By removing the veil, human persons could now have heart-to-heart connection for face-to-face relationship together with the whole-ly Trinity. The transformation of persons from inner out opens their heart to the heart of Jesus, the Father and the Spirit. When hearts open to each other and come together in relationship, the relational outcome is intimacy. This intimacy also extends throughout God’s whole-ly family when hearts open to each other in relationship together. Yet, intimacy in relationship together cannot unfold until persons emerge whole by being equalized from their distinctions; only simulations and illusions of intimacy exist when equalization is not a relational reality. Mary demonstrated the integral process of transformed persons in transformed relationship by being equalized in her person, so that she opened her heart to come together intimately with the heart of Jesus—in anticipation of, yet prior to, Jesus’ relational work on the cross to remove the veil from our hearts. As long as persons do not progress vulnerably behind the curtain in their relational involvement with Jesus on the cross to have their removed veil, they will not be equalized from their distinctions in reduced ontology and function (reduced theological anthropology). This lack or absence will always create a relational barrier for the heart to open intimately, even masked by subtle illusions of intimacy. At the same time, just being equalized from our distinctions does not guarantee that our persons will open our hearts to be deeply vulnerable for intimacy in relationships together. Nevertheless, when we experience intimacy with the whole-ly Trinity as family together, we extend our persons and relationships to each other in likeness—which is what and who Jesus enacted to transform our persons and relationships.

In the relational equation of transformed persons in transformed relationships, both equalization and intimacy are integral to the new relational order. Therefore, our belonging to the new creation church family based on the new relational order requires nothing less than equalization and no substitutes for intimacy in both our persons and relationships. Anything less and any substitutes do not involve the relational progression of the change to transformation but the subtle regression that continues to reflect, reinforce and sustain our relational condition in an old order of stratified relations shaped by the common and belonging to a surrounding culture.

As a likely extension of the early disciples’ biased lens in a comparative process, the early church strained also in a comparative process that put Hellenists in a deficit position compared to others in the church (Acts 6:1, cf. 4:34-35). The church’s identity struggled in the distinctions made between Jews and Gentiles in the church, which put Gentiles in a deficit condition that could only be improved by conforming to the majority Jews. (Sound familiar in the modern Western church?) This relational barrier precipitated change in the church because God “made no distinction between them” (Acts 15:9). And Jesus’ relational work on the cross “is our wholeness” and “has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall” that separates persons in a comparative system of distinctions (as Paul illuminated, Eph 2:14).

Distinctions (individual and collective) made and used inevitably engage a comparative process that (1) stratifies the relational order and that (2) fragments persons and relationships, whereby they are unable to be whole in the new relational order enacted by Jesus for his church family to be transformed in relationships together both equalized and intimate in likeness of the whole-ly Trinity (as Paul made definitive, 2 Cor 3:18).

Therefore, Paul made it imperative for the persons and relationships of the church to be determined from inner out solely by “the peace [wholeness] of Christ…to which indeed you were called and belong in the one church family” (Col 3:15, cf. Jn 14:27). The wholeness of Jesus as our sole determinant is the critical sola missing from the Reformation, the missing sola which has opened the hermeneutic door for all our diversity and rendered us fragmented from what and who are essential for our wholeness.

Whether human distinctions used in the church are individual or collective, they impose on persons and/or groups of persons an identity incompatible with the new creation church family. Making distinctions, for example, based on race-ethnicity, socioeconomic class, gender, and personal abilities and resourcefulness only fragment persons and their relationships; and they counter the transformation of belonging to the new creation of God’s family (as Paul magnified, Gal 3:26-27; Col 3:10-11). The defining and pivotal reality of the new relational order composing those truly belonging to the new creation family confronts our churches today and holds our persons and relationships to be accountable for our transformation to the new with nothing less and no substitutes.

A theological assumption Paul makes in the practice of his whole theology is that the new creation is ‘already’ (a present reality), even though not yet totally completed (2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15; Rom 6:4; Col 3:10; Eph 2:15b; 4:23-24). The breadth of Paul’s theology and the depth of his practice are often overlooked when not seen in his total context.[6] For example, this is evident when key statements in his letters are interpreted apart from his total context (such as Eph 2:8-9; Rom 1:17; 3:28; 2 Cor 12:9). Paul’s whole theology and practice clarify and correct our theology and practice today. For us to embrace this assumption with Paul is to be accountable for the new creation’s functional significance and implications both for the person and persons together as church, and for their witness and mission in the world—all of which assumes wholeness.

Directly as a result of the new creation ‘already’ for Paul, the outcome emerges with having a qualitative new phroneō (mindset and lens) from a whole new phronēma (framework for thought, Rom 8:2,5-6; cf. 12:2). It is from this whole interpretive framework with its qualitative lens that life is perceived in the innermost of qualitative zoe (inner-out life not in the limits of quantitative bios narrowed to outer in), and that peace is understood with the presence of wholeness (not the absence of conflict). Paul clearly distinguishes that this new interpretive framework with the Spirit is “life and peace” (v.6), and its interpretive lens determines the qualitative depth level of life discerned and its wholeness realized inner out. When the new phronēma and phroneō function by the Spirit, what emerges in the church is distinct qualitative sensitivity and relational awareness that are vital for church practice to be whole—including being vital for all its persons. Yet, this qualitative sensitivity and relational awareness have been diminished and minimalized in the global church by both its contextualized bias and commonized bias.

This new interpretive framework is critical for Paul in his discourse about peace throughout his letters and is essential for his readers to know and understand the whole in his theology. When Paul addressed the church at Corinth in their disputes, he illuminated “God is a God not of disorder but of peace” (1 Cor 14:33). This may appear to illuminate the obvious, but that depends on our interpretive framework. The term for disorder (akatastasia) involves being without a fixed or settled condition. Since Paul added that their church life and practice should be “in order” (taxis, v.40), that is, according to a set of guiding principles or an established framework, there are various conditions of church life and practice that would appear sufficient to establish order in the church—even by maintaining tradition or the status quo (cf. Jesus’ interpretive lens, Mt 15:8-9). If Paul understood peace as just the absence of conflict, then these various church conditions (including the status quo) would qualify as sufficient ecclesial order.

A deeper tension and conflict emerge because this is not the peace of God that Paul illuminates. As urgent as disorder may be in some churches and around the world, Paul is deeply focused both on the quantitative of bios and the qualitative of zoe, with zoe always primary; and the absence of conflict does not adequately address the existing disorder, nor does it fulfill the order needed for the human condition, the inherent human relational need and problem that neuroscience also points to in the human brain.[7] Before existing church denominations applaud Paul’s position, they need to pay deeper attention to what Paul illuminated. The juxtaposition of disorder (akatastasia) with Paul’s peace reveals a critical distinction: Paul’s use of akatastasia is not merely about being in a fixed or settled condition of taxis—for example, according to the Rule of Faith—but that this condition of akatastasia is a function of fragmentation, that is, practice that fragments the whole; and that God is not a God of reductionism but the God of wholeness, who therefore does not fragment but who makes whole (cf. Jesus’ practice of peace, Mt 10:34). Moreover, what Paul further illuminates for his readers is that any ecclesial order (even with an established framework) without wholeness has no significance to God—as Paul further clarified later for the new creation church (Col 3:15; Eph 4:3). In what condition would your particular church order be considered by Paul today?

Paul’s synesis (full understanding and depth of meaning) of peace emerged with the Spirit in a new phronēma with a new phroneō that deepened his focus. His synesis of wholeness included the epistemological clarification and hermeneutic correction from tamiym (cf. Gen 17:1), which helped him to integrally understand God’s relational work establishing the new relationship (siym) of wholeness (shalôm, peace only as wholeness) in God’s definitive blessing of his family (Num 6:24-26), and to relationally receive the wholeness that only Jesus gives (Jn 14:27) to embody the gospel of transformation to wholeness for the human condition (Eph 6:15). What Paul illuminated above about God and peace, and extends in relational discourse throughout his letters, made definitive this wholeness: the whole ontology and function of God, the whole-ly God’s thematic relational response to make whole the human condition, the new creation of human ontology and function in the qualitative image and relational likeness of the whole-ly triune God, and the embodying of the whole ontology and function of the church as God’s new creation family—the relational outcome of wholeness ‘already’ in the midst of reductionism. Therefore, Paul was not engaged in mere theological discourse for us to consider, or to recommend some practice, but rather to make conclusive what is imperative to distinguish who we are and whose we are.

While Paul assumes the new creation ‘already’ and its relational outcome with the Spirit to embody the church’s whole ontology and function as God’s new creation family, he never assumes the church will live whole in its new relational order, and thereby make whole in the surrounding context of reductionism. To live in wholeness is the continuous challenge for the church because its ontology and function are ongoingly challenged by and susceptible to reductionism. The tension and conflict between wholeness and reductionism is ongoing with deep repercussions, which is why Paul settles for nothing less and no substitutes in his whole theology.

In Paul’s transformed ecclesiology, for the church to live in wholeness is for the church to be ongoingly involved relationally with the Spirit for its belonging together “in the bond of wholeness” (Eph 4:3). This bond (syndesmos) is the whole relationships binding the church together from inner out as one interdependent body, which Jesus embodied and enacted for transformed relationships together both equalized and intimate (Eph 2:14-22). For the church to live in wholeness as God’s new creation family is to be deeply involved together in this new relational order of equalized and intimate relationships. This is what holds together the church in its innermost; and apart from these relationships together with the Spirit, there is just a fragmentary condition of the church—again, even with pervasive ecclesial order. When Paul illuminated “God is not a God of fragmentation but the God of wholeness,” he also made unequivocal that this new church relational order is neither optional nor negotiable. The challenge for Paul’s readers, then, becomes both about his assumption of the new creation ‘already’ and if God’s new creation family is truly the church. Paul’s transformed ecclesiology clearly defines these as inseparable and irreducible. Reductionism would renegotiate church order as sufficient alternative, perhaps even with its reification as the peace of God with irenic identity markers serving to promote the mere absence of conflict. The wholeness of the global church does not emerge from such theology and practice.

In Paul’s ongoing fight for the gospel, wholeness is a theological given for the truth of the gospel, just as Peter, Barnabas and other church leaders certainly experienced this truth from Paul (Gal 2:11-14). They learned a difficult lesson about the experiential truth of the gospel (distinguished from only having a referential or doctrinal truth) that whole relationships together are a theological imperative for the functional significance of the gospel. The polemic Paul framed around the issue between the works of the law and faith alone is more deeply focused on the underlying conflict between reductionism and wholeness, either reduced ontology and function or whole ontology and function (Gal 2:19-21); and the issues of grace, faith and works have usually not been seen in our theology and practice within this total context that includes the missing sola. Even though some of Paul’s readers may not affirm the relational outcome of the gospel until the future of ‘not yet’ for whole persons and persons together in whole relationship, they still must account for the persons and persons together now in the image and likeness of God. Past, present and future, God is not a God of fragmentation but the God of wholeness. Even now, therefore, human terms and shaping of church life and practice are insufficient to be of significance to God—despite the certainty of a church’s guiding principles (e.g. the solas of the Reformation) and the long-established tradition (as in the Rule of Faith) of its framework.

Any form of reductionism is never an option or substitute for the whole-ly God and God’s relational whole embodied in the face of Christ, who has “shined on you and been gracious to you…and established the new relationship of wholeness.” This peace—from the God of peace embodied by the completeness of God in Christ for the gospel of peace to fulfill the inherent human relational need and resolve the persistent human problem—must be accounted for by the church now. Doctrine alone is insufficient to account for this peace, tradition has been inadequate, and missional, servant, incarnational, inclusive and postmodern models for church are ambiguous. If the church is not directly dealing with the human shaping of relationships together, then the church is not addressing the human relational condition, both within itself and in the world. In the midst of reductionism, Paul is still exhorting his readers to “embody whatever is necessary to live the gospel of wholeness” (Eph 6:15).

Within the reductionism-wholeness issue is the tension between the already and the not yet, both of which Paul engaged in his relational discourse with the church at Philippi in what is likely one of his last prison letters. Paul raised some interrelated conditional (or factually implied) statements about their experiential truth of relationship with God in the present (Phil 2:1). They evoke reflection on the existence of the following: encouragement being in relationship with Christ, intimately experiencing his family love, having reciprocal relational involvement ongoingly together with the Spirit, and being affected in one’s persons from inner out. From Paul’s interpretive lens (phroneō), if these exist (or since they exist), then this defines their new mindset and interpretive lens (phroneō in likeness, 2:2,5) to determine their reciprocal involvement in relationships together, first based on their experiential truth of the whole of God and thereby in relational likeness to this whole-ly God (2:2-4). This new phroneō is not the result of human effort but emerges from a transformed phronēma constituted by the experiential reality of relationship together with the whole-ly Trinity, notably with the Spirit (Rom 8:5-6; Eph 2:22).

Though Paul was not trinitarian in his theology, traditionally speaking, the Spirit was the key for him in his practice (cf. 1 Cor 2:9-13. The dynamic presence and involvement of the Spirit’s whole person functions while inseparably on an eschatological trajectory. Yet for Paul, this does not and must not take away from the primary focus on the Spirit’s presence and involvement for the present, just as Paul addressed the Thessalonians’ eschatological anxiety with the relational imperative not to quench the Spirit’s present relational involvement (1 Thes 5:19). The Spirit’s present concern and function is relational involvement for constituting whole ontology and function, for making functional wholeness together, and for the embodying of the whole-ly God’s new creation family in whole relationship together as the church, the completeness of Christ (as pleroma, Eph 1:22-23; 1 Cor 12:11-13)—which is why the person of the Spirit is deeply affected, grieving over any reductionism in reciprocal relational involvement together (Eph 4:30). With the new de-contextualized and de-commonized lens from the Spirit, the person perceives oneself whole-ly from the inner out and others in the same way, and is involved in relationships together on this basis, which is congruent with their experience of relational involvement from God and in likeness of how God engages relationships.

The agape relational involvement Paul defines is not about sacrificial love but family love. Clarifying and correcting misconceptions of agapē and Jesus’ love, family love submits one’s whole person from inner out to one another in equalized and intimate relationships signifying whole relationship together—love in likeness of how the whole-ly God functions together and is relationally involved with us. Paul defines conclusively that in the midst of reductionism, this is the new creation church’s new relational order in which “the uncommon peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your persons from inner out in Christ Jesus from reductionism” (Phil 4:7) and by which “the God of wholeness will be relationally involved with you” (4:9).

What unfolds from Christ as the church’s uncommon peace is the relational significance of persons redeemed from their distinctions, and relationships together freed from the relational barriers keeping them in relational distance, detachment or separation. However comparative relations may be structured, Paul declares in unmistakable relational terms: “Christ has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of fragmenting differences” (Eph 2:14, NIV). The relational significance of this uncommon peace is not for the future but for this essential reality to unfold in our experience now in the church. This is the pivotal breakthrough in human relations that will transform the church to the new creation of persons redeemed and relationships reconciled in the new order uncommon for all persons, peoples, nations and their relations since ‘from the beginning’. “Christ’s relational purpose was to create in his wholeness one new humanity out of their fragmentation, thus making them whole in uncommon peace” (v.15). When this identity composed by the new relational order becomes the experiential reality for the persons and relationships of the church, they can claim salvation from sin as reductionism and salvation to wholeness together; and by only this experiential reality, they can proclaim and whole-ly witness to the experiential truth of this good news for human relations. Without this essential reality, persons and relationships in the church regress in what amounts to fake news based on alternative facts.

Furthermore, and most important, this pivotal breakthrough in relationships also includes and directly involves relationship with the whole and uncommon God. “In their wholeness together to reconcile all of them having distinctions to God through his relational work on the cross, by which he redeemed their fragmenting differences” (v.16). It is indispensable for us to understand what Paul unfolds for the church here is that reconciliation is inseparable from redemption. Redemption is integral for reconciliation in order for relationships (including with God) to come together at the heart of persons in their ontology and function from inner out, which then requires persons be redeemed from outer-in distinctions that prevent this relational connection. We cannot maintain distinctions among us and have this breakthrough in relationships for their reconciliation. This is a confronting issue for those in the church (notably its leaders), who depend on distinctions to establish their identity and self-worth. All discussion about reconciliation must include this reality or there will be no redemptive change in our relationships that brings us together face to face without the veil.

Therefore, the integral relational significance of redemptive reconciliation is for the heart of persons now to be vulnerable to each other (including God) and come together in intimate relationships. Intimate relationships are the relational outcome distinguished by the redemptive reconciliation of uncommon peace. Paul doesn’t merely recommend the uncommon peace of Christ but makes it imperative for transformed relationships equalized and intimate in the new relational order. With God, intimate relationship involves going beyond conventional spirituality and a spiritual relationship to the following: the experiential reality of the whole person vulnerably involved ongoingly with “God in boldness and confidence” (Eph 3:12), rooted in the experiential truth of being redeemed from human distinctions, from their fragmentation and the deficit condition of reduced ontology and function, and then reconciled in wholeness together belonging in God’s family—“the intimate dwelling in which the whole-ly God lives by his Spirit” (Eph 2:22, NIV cf. Jn 14:23). Accordingly and indispensably, to have this relational outcome with God and with each other requires existing relations to be transformed from the relational distance of their distinctions to intimate relationships composed by the redemptive reconciliation of uncommon wholeness. This whole outcome is the gospel and the cross that Jesus enacted to fulfill for our intimacy together heart to heart, thus with-in nothing less than our complete identity as persons face to face. Mary embodied and enacted the whole relational outcome of the gospel, in contrast and conflict with the other disciples who struggled in something less at Jesus’ expense and in their relationships together.

The relational significance of intimacy in church relationships should not be idealized, or even spiritualized, because this indeed uncommon relational outcome is at the heart of what Christ saves us to (integrally with what he saves us from). There is no good news unless the church is being transformed to intimate relationships together, no matter how clearly the gospel is defined in our theology and how much it is proclaimed in our practice. This new relational order was the only relational purpose for Jesus when he cleaned out his house for all persons, peoples and nations to have relational access to God; and the church is accountable to clean out its own house in order to “gather with me and not scatter” (Mt 12:30). To complete his only relational purpose for his house, on the cross Jesus also deconstructed his house by tearing away the prominent curtain (demolishing the holy partition) to open direct relational access face to face with the whole and uncommon God (Heb 10:19-22). This irreversible breakthrough in relationship with God included removing the veil to transform relationships both with God and with each other to intimate relationships together (2 Cor 3:16-18).

Therefore, the church and its persons and relationships are accountable for tearing down any existing holy partition that allows them to maintain practice with relational distance as if still in front of the curtain torn away by Jesus. By being involved with Jesus’ relational work enacted behind the curtain, we also are accountable for removing any existing veil over our face in order to be vulnerably involved face to face in the intimate relationships together that Christ saved us to today and not for the future. In other words, the intimate relationship of equalized persons in the church is neither optional nor negotiable but essential for the church’s whole-ly identity to be distinguished in likeness of the whole-ly God.

For Paul, God indeed is not a God of fragmentation but the God of wholeness; therefore only nothing less and no substitutes of the person and persons together in the new relational order are functionally significant for all of the following:

To reciprocally involve the whole-ly Trinity in distinct relational terms (Eph 2:17-22), to constitute God’s relational whole as family in the Trinity’s relational likeness (Col 3:10-11,15; 2 Cor 3:18), and to embody and enact as Jesus’ whole-ly disciples the ontological identity and relational belonging that are necessary to fulfill the inherent human relational need and resolve the human problem existing both in the world and even within churches (Eph 3:6,10-12; 4:13-16).

Congruently, in transformed ecclesiology the identity for all churches is distinguished beyond all surrounding contexts with nothing less and no substitutes for the following:

The church in whole ontology and function in relational terms constitutes only transformed persons relationally involved by family love in transformed relationships together integrally equalized and intimate, which composes the new relational order for the church’s whole-ly identity progressing uncommonly in wholeness in the qualitative image and relational likeness of the whole and holy God (Eph 4:23-25)—who is not a God of reductionism promoting ontological simulations and functional illusions that only regress.

Solely on this basis will the global church “be whole-ly as we are whole-ly,” and will its persons and relationships “become completely whole, so that the world may know that you have sent me to make them whole and have loved them intimately even as you have loved me” (Jn 17:22-23).

When churches and their persons and relationships function in the new relational order of transformed relationships equalized and intimate together, their whole-ly identity is both de-contextualized from belonging to a surrounding culture and de-commonized from shaping influence by the common. The unfolding relational outcome of their relational progression with the whole-ly Trinity is the new creation church fulfilling its family responsibilities by (1) face-to-face involvement in equalizing as Jesus equalized, and by (2) living equalized together as the trinitarian persons are equalized together in the Trinity. The church’s equalizing likeness to the ontology and function of the whole-ly Trinity constitutes the global church family’s ontology and function as the equalizer, first among themselves and integrally then in the contextualization and the commonization of the human condition.

Equalizing is directly correlated to peace. The peace of Jesus and Paul, however, cannot be confused with or associated with the common notion of peace used in the human context and typically by Christians. In contrast and at times even in conflict with this peace, Jesus and Paul’s peace was always and only uncommon peace. This is a crucial distinction needing to be made in our theology and practice that cannot be underestimated or overemphasized.

Common peace is not the peace of wholeness that Paul made imperative to solely determine the church from inner out (Col 3:15) to be new in uncommon likeness of the whole-ly Trinity (Col 3:10; Eph 4:24). Only the uncommon wholeness of Christ distinguishes the church family of Christ (Jn 14:27, cf. 16:33) and composes the church family to be differentiated acutely from common peace (clean-cut by Christ’s sword, Mt 10:34-38). Moreover, his uncommon peace exposes the simulation and illusion basic to common peace, and causes its division to expose its real fragmentary condition of persons and relationships in its existing reality (Lk 12:51-53). Contrary to common peace, uncommon peace is not a comfort zone or a place of convenience for the church family to practice its faith, because the wholeness of uncommon peace conjointly fights for the whole gospel and fights against its reduction to anything less and any substitutes, even if the latter is doctrinally correct. As embodied by Jesus, this integral fight is for the primacy of persons and relationships in their wholeness of ontology and function and against their fragmentation, often subtle, to anything less and any substitutes in reduced ontology and function. This reduction is typically observed in Christians using the model of Micah 6:8 for their practice composed in the terms of common peace.

Only uncommon peace kisses righteousness (as in Ps 85:10). That is, uncommon peace is integrated with the righteousness composing the whole who, what and how the church and its persons and relationships are to be in their primacy of wholeness, and thus “to live their primacy integrally with righteousness” by the faithful relational involvement of family love—singing with the psalmist and dancing with Jesus and Paul. Therefore, the church family of Christ emerges and unfolds only in the relational significance of uncommon peace, with its uncommon relational process composed by its whole relational purpose for its uncommon relational outcome distinguishing persons and relationships together in wholeness as the whole and uncommon God’s church family. This whole-ly identity of the church cannot be a variable identity of persons and relationships contextualized and/or commonized, or else their identity will no longer be whole and uncommon.

In Paul’s integral fight of Christ’s uncommon peace, he illuminated the relational significance of uncommon peace and its relational purpose, process and outcome definitive for the church and its persons and relationships to be whole together—without fragmentation and any relational distance, detachment or separation. This uncommon peace needs to compose the church’s theology and practice today both in the fight for this primacy of persons and relationships and against their reduction in any way, the subtle reductions of which by secondary matters have eluded our understanding and fogged our perception—notably by a contextualized bias and commonized bias. Without uncommon peace, the experiential truth and relational reality of the church family of Christ does not emerge and unfold, even though simulations of the church body of Christ exist today as in the past. What then specifically distinguishes the whole and uncommon identity of the church in everyday life today?

The whole relational terms of uncommon peace are always subjected to a narrowed-down lens of reduced terms that both referentialize the truth and fragment the reality of the significance of what the church is and the outcome of how the church is. The latter terms shift uncommon peace to common peace, which is no longer compatible with the relational significance of the peace of Christ nor congruent with the relational outcome of his peace.

When Jesus, as the palpable Word with the Spirit, transformed (not converted) the divisive Jew Paul, his purpose was not for common peace to negate the conflict of Paul’s power relations against the church—which Jesus received personally, “why do you persecute me?” (Acts 9:4-5) Jesus’ complete purpose in whole relational terms was for Paul’s redemptive reconciliation from his fragmentation as a member of God’s people to his wholeness as a person-child belonging to God’s whole and uncommon family. And on the relational basis of this experiential truth, Paul’s whole witness would help unfold with the palpable Word the relational reality of the new-order church family (Acts 26:14-18; Rom 5:10-11). This relational significance and outcome of the uncommon peace of Christ is what Paul illuminated definitively for the relational reality of the church to be whole. The global church needs to take into its heart what Paul unfolded with the palpable Word (1 Cor 2:10-16).

In Paul’s transformed ecclesiology, the bond of wholeness with the Spirit is embodied inner-out function of whole persons who relationally submit to one another in family love to be intimately involved in relationships together without the limits, barriers or comforts of human-shaped distinctions—signifying relationships without the veil. This relational process of equalizing from inner out needs to be distinguished in the experiential truth of church ontology and function, and not remain in doctrinal truth or as a doctrinal statement of intention, or else its relational reality will be elusive and likely submerged in an alternative or even virtual reality. When doctrine causes an impasse in the church’s relational progression, its function (not necessarily its theology) must be deconstructed for the relational process to unfold. This experiential truth happens only when the church is made whole by reciprocal relationship with the Spirit in the functional significance of four key dynamics, which reconstruct the church as equalizer. These key dynamics constitute the church as family to function in uncommon wholeness in the qualitative image of God and to live ongoingly in whole relationship together in the relational likeness of the whole-ly Trinity.

Two of these keys for the church necessitate structural and contextual dynamics and the other two involve imperatives for individual and relational dynamics. In each dynamic, redemptive changes are necessary to go from a mere gathering of individuals to the new creation church family—changes that overlap and interact with the other key dynamics. These are dynamics and related changes that the global church must absorbed into its theology and practice in order for its whole-ly identity to unfold in likeness.

While church access can be perceived from outer in as a static condition of a church structured with merely an “open-door policy,” or with a “welcome” sign to indicate its good intentions, access from the inner out of God’s relational context and process of family is dynamic and includes relational involvement (not just a welcome greeting—implied, for example, in Jesus’ transformation of the temple for prayer accessible by all. When Paul made Christ’s salvific work of wholeness conclusive for the church, all persons without distinctions “have access in one Spirit to the Father” (Eph 2:18) for relational involvement together “in boldness and confidence” (3:12) as persons who have been equalized for intimate relationships together as God’s family (2:19-22; cf. Gal 4:4-7). Access, therefore, is the structural dynamic of the church without the stratifying barriers of distinctions that treat persons differently—that is, without the reducing dynamic of diakrino confronted the church by Paul (1 Cor 4:7)—which is congruent with Christ’s relational work of wholeness (Eph 2:14-17) and is in relational likeness to God (Acts 15:9; Col 3:10-11).

The issue of access is deeply rooted in human history. Peter himself struggled with his interpretive framework (phronēma) and lens (phroneō) shaped by his tradition, whose making distinctions treated persons differently (diakrino) that denied access to those of Gentile distinction. Even after Jesus changed his theology (Acts 10:9-16), Peter struggled to change from the practice of his tradition because of his emotional investment and likely perception of losing something related to the privilege, prestige and power of having access. Such loss may not become apparent until one is placed in a lower position. Human-shaped distinctions signify having advantage in comparative relations, the absence of which precludes that advantage. After the primordial garden, the human relational condition “to be apart” became an intentional goal of human effort to secure advantage and maintain self-preservation—the ‘survival of the fittest’ syndrome masked even by religious faith. The specific resources for this relational advantage may vary from one historical context to another (cf. even the works of the law and justification by faith). Yet, privilege, prestige and power are the basic underlying issues over which these relational struggles of inequality are engaged—whether the context is family, social, economic, political or even within or among churches. Church leaders, for example, notably pursue such advantages to establish their “brand”; and most churches reinforce this subtle process of inequality by seeking personalities over persons for their leadership. Any aspects of privilege, prestige and power are advantages (and benefits) that many persons are reluctant to share, much less give up, if the perception (unreal or not) means for them to be in a position of less. The control of this distribution is threatened by equal access.

The unavoidable reality for churches is that human-shaped distinctions create and maintain advantage, which certainly fragments relationships together. Inescapably then in church practice, by their very nature human distinctions are an outer-in dynamic emerging from reduced ontology and function, which in itself already diminishes, minimalizes and fragments God’s relational whole (cf. the disparity in the early church, Acts 6:1). Access, however, is an inner-out dynamic signifying the relational dynamic and qualitative involvement of grace. That is, the functional significance of access is for all persons to be defined from inner out and not to be treated differently from outer in (including church leaders), in order to have the relational opportunity to be involved with God for their redemption from the human struggle of reductionism, and thereby to be equalized and intimately reconciled together to fulfill their inherent human relational need in God’s relational whole (as Paul clarifies in his polemic, Gal 3:26-29). Equal access does not threaten personness and wholeness for the church, but is a necessary key dynamic for their qualitative development whole-ly from inner out. Therefore, for a church to engage the necessary redemptive change that reconstructs its practice and makes functionally significant ‘access without diakrino’ is relationship-specific to what whole-ly embodies church life and practice for only this relational purpose: the ongoing relational involvement with persons who are different, in order for them also to receive equally and experience intimately the ontological identity and relational belonging to the whole-ly God’s new creation family.

Second Key Dynamic: the contextual dynamic of reconciliation absorbing natural human differences and valid God-given distinctions

This is not a contradiction of the church without diakrino, but the acknowledgement of the fact of differences in natural human makeup and the reality of valid distinctions given by God, without the church engaging in the reducing dynamic of diakrino. The ancient Mediterranean world of Paul’s time was a diversity of both natural human differences and human-shaped distinctions. Yet, prior to its diaspora due to persecution (Acts 8), the early church community was a mostly homogeneous group who limited others who were different from access to be included in their house churches, table fellowships and community identity (e.g., Acts 6:1). Despite a missional program to the surrounding diversity, church practice had yet to relationally involve the reconciliation dynamic of family love to take in those persons and absorb (not dissolve) their differences, that is, on a secondary level without using any human differences (notably of the dominant group) to determine the primary level of church make-up in ontology and function (as Paul made conclusive, Col 3:15). This purposeful relational involvement necessitates a major contextual change in the church, especially for a homogeneous gathering, yet this change should not be confused with multiculturalism. Paul was pivotal in bringing such redemptive change to the church (e.g. 1 Cor 11:17-22; Gal 2:1-10), which is incompatible with any forms of reduced ontology and function.

Paul delineates a twofold reconciliation dynamic constituted by God’s relational process of family love. On the one hand, family love dissolves human-shaped distinctions and eliminates diakrino. Equally important, on the other hand, family love absorbs most natural human differences into the primacy of relationships together, but not dissolving or assimilating those differences into a dominant framework (Rom 12:4-5). The twofold nature of this reconciliation dynamic of family love is the functional significance of Paul’s integrated fight against reductionism and for wholeness (1 Cor 12:12-13). Yet, in order to be God’s relational whole, it is not adequate to include persons of difference for the purpose of diversity (e.g. to have a multicultural church). The relational process of family love extends relational involvement to those who are different, takes in and vulnerably embraces them in their difference to relationally belong integrally to the church family. This is the dynamic made essential by Paul for the church’s “unity of the Spirit in the bond of uncommon peace/wholeness” (Eph 4:3,16); and the relational outcome is not a hybrid church with a mosaic of differences but persons and relationships made uncommonly whole together in likeness of the whole-ly Trinity.

This reconciliation dynamic signifies the contextual change necessary for the church to be ongoingly involved in the relational process of absorbing natural human differences into the church without dissolving or assimilating those differences. Churches typically are not constructed with this design. This involves, therefore, a church’s willingness to change to adjust to differences and even to adopt some differences—that is, only those differences that are compatible with God’s relational whole and congruent with God’s relational terms. Redemptive change also involves the reflexive interaction between these contextual and structural dynamics for the necessary reconstruction of church to become the equalizer in its new relational order. No claim can be made about having a church structure of access if the church’s context is not reconciling; conversely, a church cannot claim to be reconciling if equal church access is unavailable to others with differences.

In addition, just as Peter was chastened by Christ in his contextualized bias and theology, and humbled by Paul, making this contextual change functional in the church may require us to humbly accept the limitations of our current interpretive framework (phronēma) and lens (phroneō)—likely formed with a contextualized or commonized bias—to understand the significance of differences to the whole-ly God as well as of those in the whole-ly Trinity. It also requires us to honestly account for any outer-in bias necessitating the change of transformation to the whole phronēma and qualitative phroneō from the Spirit (as Paul delineated, Eph 4:22-25; Rom 8:5-6, cf. 12:2). This humility and honesty are essential for the church’s contextual dynamic of reconciliation to be of functional significance to absorb natural human differences into church life and practice as family together (cf. Eph 4:2).

The importance of these structural and contextual dynamics for the church to be whole as the equalizer from inner out—distinguishing its whole-ly identity in the new relational order—also directly involve the other two interrelated key dynamics. These are dynamics for the individual person and our relationships. The four dynamics intensely interact together in reflexive relationship that suggests no set pattern of their development and function. Yet, there is a clear flow to each pair of dynamics—for example, there has to be access before differences can be absorbed—while in crucial and practical ways the latter pair will determine the extent and significance of the former’s function. The global church and all its persons and relationships, therefore, are accountable together for their ongoing involvement in these integral dynamics with the essential dynamic of nothing less and no substitutes.

Third Key Dynamic: the person’s inner-out response of freedom, faith and love to others’ differences

When a person is faced with differences in others, there is invariably some degree of tension for that person, with awareness of it or not. The tension signifies the engagement of our provincial context or ‘our little world’ we live in—that which is constructed from the limitations of the person’s perceptual-interpretive framework influenced by contextualized and commonized biases and shaped by culture in the surrounding context. This is why humbly accepting the limits of our particular way of thinking and honestly accounting for our bias in seeing other things in general and other persons in particular are both needed for the reconciliation dynamic to be whole together. What does a person(s) do with those differences in that relational context? The structural and contextual dynamics can be invoked by the church, yet their functional significance in the church interacts with and will ultimately be determined by each individual person’s response—a response whose significance must be composed in vulnerable relational terms and not be mere referential terms enhanced even with good intentions.

In everyday life, the person’s response will emerge either from outer in or inner out, and it may shift back and forth from one person and/or situation to another. What differences we pay attention to and ignore from our interpretive lens are critical to understand for the following ongoing interrelated issues: (1) what we depend on to define our person and maintain our identity; (2) then on this basis, how we engage relationships in these diverse conditions; and, thus (3), based on these two issues what level of relationship we engage in within the church. These are inescapable issues that each person must address as an individual and be accountable for, on the one hand, while the church community must account for these in practice at the same time.

Paul demonstrated the person’s inner-out response to others’ differences that is necessary both to be a whole person and to be involved in whole relationship together. In his fight for the gospel, Paul is also always fighting against reductionism. One aspect of the relational outcome of the gospel is the freedom that comes from being redeemed. Yet, for Paul the whole composing the gospel is not a truncated soteriology but the whole relational outcome of the full (pleroma) soteriology—what we are all saved to and not just from. This is a crucial distinction that we have yet to clearly distinguish in our theology and practice. In Paul’s whole theology and practice, he composes Christian freedom in the relational context of God’s relational whole, so that the relational purpose of Christian freedom and its functional significance would not be diminished, minimalized or abused in reductionism (Gal 5:1,13; 1 Cor 8:9). From this interpretive framework and lens, which counters contextualized and commonized biases, Paul highlights his own liberty and the nature of his relational response to others’ differences (1 Cor 9:19-23). He deeply engaged the relational dynamic of family love in the vulnerable relational process of submitting his whole person to those persons, simply declaring “I have become all things to all people” (v.22). Clearly, by his statement Paul is not illustrating what to do with the tension in those situations created by human differences and how to handle those differences. Further clarification is needed, however, since his apparent posture can be perceived in different ways, either negatively or positively.

Given his freedom, Paul was neither obligated nor coerced to function according to the immediate context, in what appears to be an absence of self-identity in where he belongs. His response also seems to contradict his relational imperative to “Live as children of light” (Eph 5:8). Yet, in terms of the three inescapable issues for all persons (noted above), the person Paul presented to others of difference was not a variable personality who has no clear sense of his real identity (e.g. as light). Nor was Paul communicating to them a message of assimilating to their terms, and to try to fit into their level of relationship or even subtly masquerade in the context of their differences. Contrary to these reductionist practices, Paul engaged in practices of wholeness without the veil of outer-in distinctions. Since Paul did not define his person in quantitative terms from the outer in, he was free to exercise who he was from inner out and to decisively present his whole person to others even in the context of any and all of their differences (natural or not)—which always remained in secondary distinction from the primary. He openly communicated to them a confidence and trust in the whole person he was from inner out, the integrity of which would not be compromised by involvement with them in their difference and thus could be counted on by them to be that whole person in his face-to-face involvement with them—his righteousness integrated with the integrity of his identity. His involvement with them went deeper than the level of their differences and freely responded in the relational trust with the Spirit (the relational involvement of triangulation), in order to submit his whole person to them in their differences for the relational involvement of family love needed for the relational purpose “that I might by all means save some” (v.22). Paul submits his whole person to them in family love not for the mere outcome of a truncated soteriology of only being saved from—and perhaps for them to become members of a church—but for the whole relational outcome of also being saved to gained from “the whole gospel so that I may share in its blessings of whole relationship together as family” (v.23). Therefore, his inner-out response to others’ differences clearly distinguished to what and who Paul belonged.

It is essential for all in the global church to take Paul seriously and to highlight him along with Mary as the disciples of whole theology and practice necessary for the relational progression of the gospel. In the face of others’ differences, Paul neither distanced himself from them in the province of ‘his little world’ nor did he try to control them to assimilate and fit (or conform) into his world and the comforts of his framework—as witnessed historically in the Western church and presently in segments of the global church. In contrast, he acted in the relational trust of faith to venture out of his old world (and old wineskin ways of thinking, seeing and doing things) and beyond the limitations that any old interpretive framework (contextualized or commonized bias) imposes on personhood and relationships. Paul underwent such transforming (not reforming) changes in order to illuminate the wholeness of God in the midst of reductionism. In this relational process, he also illuminated the relational need of the person and persons together as church to have contextual sensitivity and responsiveness to others in their contextual differences, without losing the primacy of who and whose he was, or denigrating their own ontological identity of who and whose they were (cf. Paul in Athens, Acts 17, and Jesus at the wedding in Cana, Jn 2:1-11).

Clearly, Paul demonstrated the necessary response of the whole person from inner out to those differences in order to engage those persons in the reconciliation dynamic of family love for their experience to belong in the relational whole of God’s family. Yet, Paul’s response also demonstrated the needed changes within the individual person involving redemptive change (old wineskins, biases and practices dying and the new rising). This process addresses in oneself any outer-in ontology and function needing to be transformed from inner out (metamorphoo, as Paul delineated, Rom 12:2-3). This transformation from outer in to inner out not only frees the relational process for the new creation but directly leads to its embodying in the new relational order. Redemptive change must antecede and prevail in the relational process leading to reconciliation to the whole-ly God’s new creation family.

Change always raises issues, especially if it intrudes on our freedom to live as we want. In the freedom of the person’s inner-out response to submit one’s whole person to others in family love, the act of submitting becomes a reductionism-issue when it is obligated or coerced apart from freedom. There is a fine line between obligation and freedom, which is confused when our responses merely conform. Freedom itself, however, becomes reductionist when it is only the means for self-autonomy, self-determination or self-justification, because these are subtle yet acceptable substitutes from reductionism. Paul clarified that God never redeems us to be free for this end (Gal 5:1,13; cf. 1 Cor 7:35). God frees us from reductionism to be whole in both our persons and relationships (1 Cor 10:23-24). Redemption by Christ and what he saves from are inseparable from reconciliation and what he saves to. To summarize the relational process and outcome:

The integral function of redemptive reconciliation is the whole (nonnegotiable) relational process of the whole (untruncated) relational outcome of the whole (unfragmented) gospel. Anything less and any substitutes for any of these essential dimensions fragment the church and reduce its persons and relationships.

Therefore, it is crucial for our understanding of the inseparable functions of personness and human relationships, both within the church and in the world, to understand that deeply implicit in the wholeness of Christian freedom is being redeemed from those matters causing distance, barriers and separation in relationships—specifically in the relational condition “to be apart” from whole relationship together, which if not responded to from inner out leaves the inherent human relational need unfulfilled even within churches.

Paul’s exercise of freedom in submitting his whole person to others in family love was constituted by his whole theology and practice. This first involved the convergence of the theological dynamics of his complete Christology in full soteriology with whole pneumatology for transformed ecclesiology. This whole theology then unfolds in practice in order to be involved in the relationships together necessary to embody the church as equalizer from inner out. This whole theology and practice are what Paul condenses in the gospel of transformation to wholeness vulnerably embodied and relationally enacted in the full-profile face of whole-ly Jesus, which has the relational outcome ‘already’ of only whole persons agape-relationally involved in whole relationships together both equalized and intimate.

The integral function of whole persons and whole relationships together is deeply integrated, and their interaction must by their nature in relational terms emerge from inner out. For the person and persons together as church to have the functional significance of being equalized in intimate relationships, their ontology and function need to be whole from inner out—nothing less and no substitutes for the person and for relationships together. This inner-out process leads us from the key dynamic for the individual person to its interaction with the key dynamic for relationships.

Fourth Key Dynamic: relationships engaged vulnerably with others (different or not) by deepening involvement from inner out

The dynamic engaged within individual persons extends to their relationships. What Paul defined as his whole person’s inner-out response—“I have become all things to all people”—also defines his relational involvement with them by making his whole person vulnerable from inner out—“I have made my person vulnerable to all human differences for the purpose of inner-out relational involvement with all persons.” This decision to engage relationships vulnerably must be a free choice made with relational trust and in family love because there are risks and consequences for such involvement. On the one hand, the consequences revolve around one’s person being rejected or rendered insignificant. The risks, on the other hand, are twofold, which involves either losing something (e.g. the stability of ‘our little world’, the certainty of our interpretive framework and the identity of our belonging, the reliability of how we do relationships) or being challenged to change (e.g. the state of one’s world, the focus of one’s interpretive lens and mindset, one’s own identity and established way of doing relationships). The dynamic of ‘losing something-challenged to change’ is an ongoing issue in all relationships, and the extent of the risks depends on their perception either from outer in or from inner out.

For Paul, this is always the tension between reductionism and wholeness, that is, between relationships fragmented by limited involvement from outer in and relationships made whole by deepening involvement from inner out. Regardless of the consequences, Paul took responsibility for living whole in relationships for the inner-out involvement necessary to make relationships whole together, because the twofold risks were not of significance to those in wholeness but only to those in reductionism (cf. his personal assessment, Phil 3:7-9; also his challenge to Philemon).

Later, Paul appeared to qualify the extent of his vulnerable involvement in relationships by stating “I try to please everyone in everything” (1 Cor 10:33). The implication of this could be simply to do whatever others want, thereby pleasing all and not offending anyone (10:32)—obviously an unattainable goal that doesn’t keep some persons from trying, Paul not among them. Paul would not be vulnerable in relationships with this kind of involvement. Aresko means to please, make one inclined to, or to be content with. This may involve doing either what others want or what they need. Paul is not trying to look good before others for his own benefit (symphoros, 10:33). Rather he vulnerably engages them with the relational involvement from inner out that they need (not necessarily want) for all their benefit “so that they may be saved to whole relationship together in God’s family.” In his personal disclosure, Paul does not qualify the extent of his vulnerable involvement in relationship with others by safely giving them what they want. He qualifies only the depth of his vulnerable involvement by lovingly giving them what they need to be whole, even if they reject his whole person or try to render his whole function as insignificant (cf. 2 Cor 12:15). This depth for Paul enacted the first two inescapable issues that first defined his whole person and identity, and thereby engaged relationships with others’ differences—both of which mirrored how Jesus enacted his person in relationships and thus unmistakably identified Paul as his whole-ly disciple.

This deepening relational involvement from inner out to vulnerably engage others in relationship with one’s whole person certainly necessitates redemptive change from our prevailing ways of doing relationships, including from a normative church interpretive lens of what is paid attention to and ignored in church gatherings and relationships together. This then also includes the underlying bias not merely from our surrounding context but shaped by the common. If the vulnerability of family love is to be relationally involved, whether by the individual person or persons together as church, the concern cannot be about the issue of losing something—something that has no significance to the primacy of wholeness but creates tension or anxiety when the secondary is made primary. The focus on such risks will be constraining, if not controlling, and render both person and church to reduced ontology and function, hereby exposing the greater risk of our own existing condition being challenged to change and our need for it.

Therefore, our faith as relational trust in ongoing reciprocal relationship with the Spirit is critical for freeing us to determine what is primary to embrace in church life and practice and what we need to relinquish control over “for the unity of the Spirit in the bond of wholeness” (Eph 4:3; Gal 5:16,25). The bond of wholeness by its nature requires change in us: individual, relational, structural and contextual changes. With these redemptive changes for persons, relationships and churches—encompassing the three inescapable issues in their depth—the integral function of redemptive reconciliation can emerge in family love for vulnerable involvement with others (different or not) in relationships together from inner out. Such reconstruction by design becomes, lives and makes whole uncommonly in the new relational order, which is not a mere option, merely recommended or simply negotiable for churches and its persons and relationships. Anything less and any substitutes for persons, relationships and churches are no longer whole and uncommon.

The dynamic flow of these four key dynamics is the dynamic of uncommon wholeness composing the experiential truth and relational reality of the church’s ontology and function as equalizer from inner out. In ongoing tension and conflict with the church in the bond of wholeness is reductionism seeking to influence every level of the church—individual persons, relationships, its structure and context. For Paul, this is the given battle ongoingly extended into the church, against which reductionism must be exposed, confronted and made whole by redemptive change at every level of the church. While Paul presupposes the need for redemptive change given the pervasive influence of reductionism, he never assumes the redemptive-change outcome of the new emerging without the reciprocal relational involvement of the Spirit (2 Cor 3:17-18; Gal 5:16; 6:8; Rom 8:6; Eph 3:16). Accordingly, the reciprocal nature of the Spirit’s relational involvement makes change in our persons, our relationships and our churches an open question. Our lack of reciprocal involvement makes the Spirit grieve (Eph 4:30).

God’s family has become the vulnerable dwelling of the whole and uncommon God (as Jesus made conclusive, Jn 14:23, and Paul definitively reinforced, Eph 2:19-22), yet this relational outcome has no relational significance as long as the curtain (holy partition) and veil are still present. God is vulnerably present and relationally involved for intimate relationship together. While we cannot be equal with God (perhaps the purpose for some in the practice of deification), we have to be equalized to participate in and partake of God’s life in his family together. That is, we cannot be intimately involved with God from the basis of any of our outer-in distinctions, all of which signify the presence of the veil keeping us at relational distance. Those distinctions have to be redeemed without exception, so that we can be equalized from inner out and thereby reconciled in intimate relationship together; and this equalization is necessary to be transformed in relationships together as God’s whole and uncommon family. The transformed relationships that distinguish the church family must then be, without variation, both equalized and intimate. There can be no complete intimate involvement together as long as the veil of distinctions exists. Distinctions focus our lens on and engage our practice from outer in, unavoidably in comparative relations that create distance, discrimination, separation and brokenness, all of which are incompatible with intimate relationships, and incongruent with equalized relationships. Therefore, the experiential truth and relational reality of the redemptive reconciliation of uncommon peace (never commonized) involve the church in the integral transformed relationships together of equalized persons in equalized relationships, who are vulnerably involved in intimate relationships face to face, heart to heart as God’s whole and uncommon family as the equalizing church.

Indeed, based on the uncommon peace of Christ that Paul makes the only determinant for the church (imperatively in Col 3:15), nothing less than equalized relationships and no substitutes for intimate relationships compose the new-order church family of Christ, whose wholeness distinguishes the church’s persons and relationships in their primacy of whole ontology and function in likeness of the whole-ly Trinity. If we take Paul seriously, we cannot take him partially or use him out of his total context but need to embrace his whole theology and practice for ours to be whole also. Therefore, beyond any contextualized or commonized bias, what emerges from the church’s uncommon peace is the experiential truth of uncommon equality, which is the good news transforming the fragmentation and inequality of all persons, peoples, nations and their human relations. The relational reality of this uncommon equality unfolds from the relational progression of this whole-ly church family as it is ongoingly involved in equalizing all persons, peoples, nations and their relationships—equalizing in whole relational terms composed by the redemptive reconciliation of uncommon peace.

One qualifying note should be added to clarify the intimate equalizer church. As the new-order church family in likeness of the Trinity, the intimate equalizer church is still the body of Christ. That is, the functional order that Paul outlined for the church to compose its interdependent synergism is still vital (1 Cor 12:12-31). The uncommon equality composing the church in the intimacy of uncommon wholeness does not mean that all its persons do the same thing and equally have the same resources, nor does everyone engage their practice (including worship) in the same manner. The new-order church is neither a homogeneous unit nor a monotonic composition. Diversity as nonconformity in what persons do and as non-uniformity in the resources they have are basic to the synergism (not the sum of diverse parts) of the body of Christ. The key issue is not differences but distinctions associated with differences that limit and constrain persons and fragment the relational order of the church family from wholeness together. Having this nonconforming and non-uniform diversity in the church is important for the church’s interdependent synergism, but each difference from outer in is secondary and must be integrated into the primary of the whole church from inner out, that is, the vulnerably intimate church in uncommon wholeness and uncommon equality (Eph 4:11-13,16, cf. Col 2:19). When differences (such as gifts and services, 1 Cor 12:4-11) become the primary focus, even inadvertently, they subtly are seen with distinctions that set into motion the comparative process with its relational consequences, which persons and relationships with these distinctions have to bear—the consequences Jesus saw in the temple before he redeemed it.

Despite the extent of differences in the body of Christ, Jesus embodied the church to be nothing less than whole (complete together, pleroma, Eph 1:22-23). As the pleroma of Christ, the church body is neither a mere gathering of our differences nor merely a collection of these differences, as if their distinctions enhance the integrity of the church. In this sense, the metaphor of the body of Christ is insufficient to compose the whole-ly identity of the church as family, whose identity is composed only in the new relational order of the whole-ly Trinity.

The defining line between diversity and distinctions has disappeared in most church theology and practice (including the academy’s) today, such that the consequences are not understood or recognized. In whatever way those consequences emerge in the church (local, regional, global), they all converge in inequality of the church’s relational order—if not explicitly then implicitly. This unequal relational order of distinctions is contrary to and in conflict with the uncommon wholeness of Christ, therefore incongruent with the Trinity. As Paul made definitive Jesus’ salvific work for the church (1 Cor 12:13; Gal 3:26-29; Eph 2:14-16; Col 3:10-11), Jesus enacted the good news in order for this relational purpose and outcome:

To compose the uncommon equality of his church family at the heart of its persons and relationships in whole ontology and function, and therefore unequivocally transformed them (1) to be redeemed from human distinctions and their deficit condition and (2) to be reconciled to the new relational order in uncommon transformed relationships together both equalized and intimate in their innermost, and thereby congruent in uncommon likeness with the wholeness of the Trinity.

Redemptive reconciliation is not optional but essential to the uncommon whole of who, what and how the church and its persons and relationships are to be. This is the gospel of wholeness Jesus enacted to constitute the uncommon trinitarian church family as the intimate equalizer.

Those in the global church have to examine the gospel we have claimed, and should wonder in the midst of our diverse condition: Do we have a different gospel and outcome determining the function for the church and its persons and relationships than the uncommon peace of Christ?; for “he came and proclaimed peace to you in a deficit position distinction and peace to those in a better position of distinction yet still in a reduced condition” (Eph 2:17)? Common peace affirms a variable gospel in diverse theology and practice.

The relational progression of Jesus transforms us to wholeness beyond the individual person to the whole of his family. His relational progression integrates whole persons involved in transformed relationships equalized and intimate into new family together in order to complete this wholeness in likeness of the Trinity. To be whole in likeness of the Trinity means for our persons together to function not only like Jesus but integrally also like the Father and the Spirit, all of whom are whole persons belonging to each other in relationship together as one Whole to constitute the Trinity. We can only be whole persons in likeness when we belong to each other in the new relational order of transformed relationships together as one Whole composing the church family (including as the body of Christ). Likewise, the church can only be whole when its persons and relationships are transformed to belong equalized and intimately to each other in relationship together as one Whole. There is no option for variance in God’s whole—which should not be confused with the doctrine of election or assumed to preclude free will. The unalterable reality is that anything less and any substitutes are no longer whole, whether for the Trinity, the church, our persons or relationships.

This integrated whole, however, of persons and relationships together as church family is also uncommon from what exists in the human context, in the surrounding contexts, and in our Christian contexts. A subtle assumption, which is not apparent as a theological assumption, made by people of faith in the past and presently is that “You thought I was common just like yourself” (Ps 50:21). Based on this assumption God has been contextualized and commonized in diverse ways on our terms. The relational progression Jesus enacted, and continues to enact as the palpable Word with the Spirit, de-contextualized and de-commonized the whole of who, what and how God is, and thereby disclosed the vulnerable presence and relational involvement of the whole and uncommon Trinity. Yet, even bias in traditional trinitarian theology commonly has not encompassed the uncommon presence and whole involvement of the Trinity as disclosed by the Word.

Disciples of Jesus “Follow me” in his relational progression to the new, which integrally is irreducibly whole and nonnegotiably uncommon. Being uncommon involves knowing where we belong and to whom. Just as Jesus prayed for all his disciples to belong as he belongs, and to be sanctified (made uncommon) as he is sanctified (Jn 17:15-19), our progression to be uncommon necessitates ongoing involvement in the following to be “where I am” (Jn 12:26):

1. The process of reciprocating contextualization (RC) between our primary context of belonging and our secondary context in the world, thereby addressing our contextualized bias that confuses or obscures where and to whom we belong.

2. The process of integrating our priorities (PIP), with the secondary always encompassed into the primary, the distinction of which may become ambiguous if our contextualized bias is not addressed; or the primary could be distorted and inverted with the secondary if our commonized bias is not negated.

3. Embracing the distinguishing bias with-in the Uncommon (not just parts or selectively) in order to negate the subtle influence of the bias for the common, our commonized bias.

This is the only discipleship that distinguishes his whole-ly disciples who belong to the whole-ly Trinity (as distinguished in Eph 2:19-22).

Therefore, for our persons, relationships and churches to be whole-ly and function in the likeness of the whole-ly Trinity, we all (both individually and collectively) need unavoidable ongoing involvement in the pivotal processes of de-contextualization and de-commonization—notably to redeem any contextualized bias and commonized bias existing in our midst. This conscious involvement is indispensable in order for the relational outcome to be transformed to the new creation of our persons, relationships and churches, and to function with-in the relational progression of the Trinity’s relational response of family love to our undeniable relational condition—and extending now to the human condition of all persons, peoples and nations.

Who will “Follow my whole-ly person” and “be my whole-ly disciples where I am”?

[1] See, for example, a recent study (working paper) from Yale University by Gordon Pennycook, Tyrone Cannon and David Rand, “Prior Exposure Increases Perceived Accuracy of Fake News”. Online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2958246.

[2] Joel B. Green, “Our Culturally Shaped Lenses” in Fuller Magazine, Issue #8, 2017, 3.

[3] H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture 50^th-anniversary ed. (N.Y.: Harper San Francisco, 2001).

[4] See, for example, Glen H. Stassen, D.M. Yeager, John Howard Yoder, Authentic Transformation: A New Vision of Christ and Culture, (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996), and also Gordon Lynch, Understanding Theology and Popular Culture, (Australia: Blackwell Publishing, 2005), 93-110.

[5] For an overview of this historical development, see Bruce D. Chilton, “Judaism and the New Testament” in Daniel G. Reid, ed., The IVP Dictionary of the New Testament (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 603-616.

[6] I discuss Paul’s breadth and depth in The Whole of Paul and the Whole in His Theology: Theological Interpretation in Relational Epistemic Process (Paul Study, 2010). Online at http://www.4X12.org.

[7] See John T. Cacioppo and William Patrick, loneliness: Human Nature and the Need for Social Connection (New York: W.W. Norton, 2008).