Ch 7 Normalizing, Reforming or Transforming

Jesus made paradigmatic for our theology and practice: “The measure you use will be the measure you get” (Mk 4:24). Our discussion has revolved essentially around this paradigm, with the relational imperative to “Pay close attention to the whole-ly Word you hear” in order for our theology and practice to have the clarification and correction necessary to be whole and uncommon like the Word. His relational imperative challenges our contextualized bias and/or our commonized bias, while his paradigm confronts our diverse theology and practice. At this intersection, “Where are you as a disciple?” and “What are you doing here in your discipleship?” “Do you know me whole-ly yet?”

The Integrity of the Word

Where we are as disciples and what we are doing in our discipleship supposedly was clarified and corrected by the Reformation. The claims made by the magisterial Reformers for all theology and practice were based on Scripture alone, the defining principle of sola scriptura. Christians and their churches, emerging directly or indirectly from the Reformation, also claim the basis for their theology and practice in sola scriptura—notably evangelicals-neoevangelicals who are identified as ‘people of the Book’. Ironically, though not surprisingly, there are lacking, missing, misrepresented or distorted essential disclosures in Scripture that compose their theology and practice. The most notable variable centers on the profile of God’s face, whose full profile is disclosed by the Word in the vulnerably embodied face of whole-ly Jesus—whose uncommon wholeness is the missing sola (as in Jn 14:27 and Col 3:15) in the Reformation and in those Christians and churches emerging directly or indirectly from the Reformation. The Word alone disclosed the full profile of the whole-ly Trinity.

Therefore, this is the only Word that Paul made conclusive to “dwell in you in relational terms” (Col 3:16) as the irreducible and nonnegotiable, thus invariable, basis for our theology and practice to be distinguished in uncommon wholeness. The variable condition of anything less and any substitutes, observed in the diversity of theology and practice since the Reformation, is no longer distinguished because the integrity of the Word has been compromised by the assumed bias and presumed use of Scripture alone. In Jesus’ paradigm established for his disciples’ whole theology and practice, the Word we claim is what and who we get; and our persons, relationships and churches should not expect anything more, nor assume that we don’t have anything less and any substitutes in our theology and practice.

At a pivotal juncture for his early disciples—which would be defining for all his disciples—Thomas correctly stated: “Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?” (Jn 14:5). Despite Thomas’ commonized bias—which focused on the quantitative of whole-ly Jesus over the qualitative (epitomized in Jn 20:24-29)—his logic asks the right question that all of us need to be asking at this pivotal juncture today: If we do not know the relational progression of whole-ly Jesus, how can we know the way to “Follow me” and thereby to “be where I am” in order to fulfill our purpose in life and to complete what we are in this world for?

In the familiar words of Jesus, the Word disclosed in relational terms to Thomas and all his disciples: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life” (Jn 14:6). These consummate words have been commonly rendered to referential terms, fragmented from each other and interpreted with a latitude that has made ambiguous the Word and compromised his integrity. In other words (contrary words), with our biases we have made assumptions about what and who the Word disclosed and have presumed to know how to live accordingly to them. Who, what and how whole-ly Jesus ongoingly disclosed “I am” always clarifies and corrects us in order to maintain the integrity of the Word. Thomas obviously didn’t pay close attention to the words Jesus communicated throughout his interactions, especially with his disciples.

When other disciples learned from Jesus where his relational progression was going, his way was too uncommon for them: “‘This Word is difficult [hard, harsh, skleros]; who can accept it?’…Because of this many of his disciples turned off and no longer walked [lived, conduct one’s life, peripateo] with him on his uncommon way” (Jn 6:60,66). At least these disciples were honest, whereas other disciples diversely redefined the way to make it more palatable, without having to digest distasteful elements of it (as in Jn 6:53-58). Jesus openly disclosed to them his way, without trying to disguise it for their comfort or to embellish it for their convenience. Disclosing that he was the uncommon Way is essential to the integrity of the Word and simply nonnegotiable to any other terms by his disciples.

When other disciples heard from Jesus the experiential truth of his uncommon way, their experience went beyond what they expected—likely beyond what most disciples would expect to hear today. Those disciples learned that the truth of his uncommon way was inconvenient, even divisive in social terms and simply impractical in reasonable terms (Lk 9:57-62). The reality of the Word to the above diverse disciples was that his uncommon way was just too out of the ordinary for their discipleship and an inconvenient Truth to embrace. His uncommon way and inconvenient truth, however, constitute the integrity of the Word and therefore are nonnegotiable and irreducible to anything less and any substitutes. As Jesus defined for Thomas and all his disciples, “I am the uncommon Way and the inconvenient Truth.”

When Jesus disclosed his purpose in this life and what he was in the world for to Pilate, Pilate was faced with the inconvenient Truth about whom he had to make a decision. Like many Christians, Pilate thought he could avoid the inconvenience of the Truth by shifting the focus to secondary matters—in his situation, turning philosophical with “What is truth?” (Jn 18:37-38). In apparent contrast, yet still similar in approach, Peter faced the relational progression of the inconvenient Truth in a head-on collision to deny the reality of the Truth in his uncommon way to the cross (Mt 16:21-22). In diverse ways, his disciples have transposed the inconvenient Truth to be without relational significance in their theology and practice, such that common observers can question “what is truth?” and legitimately conclude the absence of the reality of truth for them to experience—in contrast to Jesus’ prayer (Jn 17:21-23). This is the unavoidable relational consequence when the integrity of the Word as the uncommon Way and the inconvenient Truth has been compromised. Yet, when we don’t compromise the integrity of the Word, “you are truly my disciples; and you will know the inconvenient Truth and the inconvenient Truth will make you free” (Jn 8:31-32). This is the intrusive relational significance of the Truth, who composes “the Truth of the gospel” in whole relational terms, which many disciples in the early church still considered too inconvenient a truth (as Paul contended, Gal 2:5,14).

As composed in Jesus’ family prayer above, the most essential measure of the Word’s integrity is the complete life of the Trinity in whole ontology and function. This is the whole life (zoe) that the Word embodied and enacted for our persons, relationships and churches to be whole together in likeness of the Trinity. Nothing less and no substitutes can fulfill Jesus’ prayer, because anything less and any substitutes cannot be (1) the whole Life of the Word and thus (2) the whole life of the Trinity, therefore (3) the whole life of his family in likeness of the Trinity, who is disclosed by the integrity of the Word’s whole Life and inconvenient Truth and uncommon Way.

We can only distinguish where we are as disciples and what we are doing in our discipleship by “Following my whole-ly person” and “being where I am whole-ly.” Whole-ly Jesus composed the Word solely with the uncommon Way and the inconvenient Truth and the whole Life. In the ongoing hermeneutic challenge, our persons, relationships and churches are responsible for maintaining the integrity of the Word, and we are accountable to the Word alone and to each other in likeness for any compromise. When we don’t meet this responsibility and be accountable, we open the hermeneutic door wide to allow the diversity of disciples and discipleship to define who we are and to determine whose we are, whereby our whole-ly identity is converted to a diversified identity of common formation.

Normalizing Our Faith, Reforming Our Theology and Practice

The prevailing faith of God’s people by the time of Jesus had become normalized—that is, not engaged as the relational work of trust in the primacy of relationship together but practiced as the secondary work of meeting the obligations or conforming to the requirements of a Rule of Faith, not the Relationship of Faith. The prevailing faith of the church in much of its history also became normalized, notably evidenced in the churches of Jesus’ post-ascension critique (Rev 2-3), and with the establishment of Christendom and its variations since the fifth century. The Reformation in the sixteenth century sought to correct the normalizing of faith by reforming the existing theology and practice. Yet, since this juncture in church history, the prevailing faith among many Protestants and their churches has become normalized in spite of efforts to correct it. Why so?

Normalizing in general happens when our worldview and interpretive lens (phroneō, cf. Rom 8:5-6) are influenced and shaped by the limits of our human context. When our sphere of knowledge (epistemic field) is narrowed down to and limited by, for example, conventional wisdom, philosophy or the physical universe of science, then the limits of this contextualized bias have a primary influence in shaping how we function. Under this influence the practice of faith shifts from the intimate involvement in the primacy of reciprocal relationship with God to subtle ontological simulations and functional illusions of faith’s primacy.

Reforming (or renewing) our theology and practice doesn’t sufficiently change this condition. Regardless of the major emphasis on the vital solas (Scripture alone, Christ alone, by grace and by faith alone), reforming efforts still lack the missing sola (the uncommon wholeness of whole-ly Jesus), which keeps them from getting to the depth of this condition, our default human condition. When reform efforts are undertaken without the missing sola, their sphere of understanding human persons and their function is limited by a reduced theological anthropology and constrained by a common view of sin and the human condition. Sola gratia (grace alone) and sola fide (faith alone) become insignificant claims that don’t really change the depth of this condition. Rather, the constraints of a commonized bias subtly direct re-form efforts to promote changes that in effect merely recycle ontological simulations and functional illusions of the primacy of faith in the wholeness of relationship together with God and each other.

Contextualized bias keeps us from seeing the ontological and functional consequences of normalizing. Commonized bias prevents us from understanding the ontological and functional consequences of merely re-forming. The dynamics of normalizing and reforming are interrelated in the global church today, and they interact to cultivate its diversity and thereby generate its fragmentation.

When Nicodemus pursued Jesus in the night, he was shrouded in the normalized faith of God’s people. He obviously wanted more than this in seeking out Jesus, “a teacher…from God” (Jn 3:2), but whether he had reforming on his mind is uncertain. What is certain is that he encountered whole-ly Jesus, beyond his contextualized bias of who he could have imagined and beyond his commonized bias of what he expected to receive: transformation from inner out to uncommon wholeness, and nothing less and no substitutes! This outcome cannot emerge from the prevailing normalizing of John 3:16, nor can it unfold from the prevalent reforming based on the change of merely “born again.” The outcome that whole-ly Jesus composed illuminated the missing sola that eludes much of our theology and practice today.

Therefore, the most compelling question facing all of us today, with inescapable results from our response, is: To be or not to be whole-ly. We cannot be changed from inner out and thus whole—that is, experiencing the reality of the whole gospel’s transformation—without being different from who and what commonly exists. Equally, we cannot be distinguished different from inner out (not mere outer-in differences) and thus uncommon (holy) without being transformed to wholeness only inner out. In this inseparably integrated process, the absence or loss of either our wholeness or our uncommonness compromises our integral integrity, resulting in our identity as Jesus’ disciples becoming ambiguous or obscured—just as Jesus exposed in his manifesto for all his disciples (Mt 5:13-16). The contrasting result unfolds from living in our integral integrity, because the uncommon wholeness composing the integrity of our identity is essential to distinguish uncommonly the whole of who, what and how we are as his whole-ly disciples.

Anything less of our wholeness and any substitutes for our uncommonness are no longer whole-ly, which render us as disciples in a life and our discipleship on a way that becomes a normalizing of the truth. Reforming this way, truth and life do not result in the change embodied and enacted by whole-ly Jesus in the uncommon Way, the inconvenient Truth and the whole Life. What is the truth of the gospel you use in your theology and practice? Also, what is your life as a disciple and your way of discipleship? How do they compare to the uncommon Way, the inconvenient Truth and the whole Life?

The General Relativity of the Gospel

John’s summary of the gospel reflected the illumination of the Word that “in him was life and the whole Life was the light of all people” (Jn 1:4). The whole Life who composed the gospel had no difficulty shining his light in the darkness but the human context has difficulty seeing the Light. The difficulty is twofold: (1) not seeing the Light because of commonized bias from reductionism, which fractures the light to obscure the whole Life; (2) not recognizing the Light because of a contextualized bias shaped by Christians, who have refracted the Light and rendered ambiguous the gospel composed by the whole Life. This contextualized bias shaped by Christians is what others observe of our theology and practice. Consider, for example, most observers of the global church don’t see a rich diversity but a fragmentation of diverse parts that lacks unity, much less wholeness. The reality simply stated, the gospel that Christians claim and proclaim commonly does not reflect the whole Life of the Light; instead the gospel re-presented has become relative, which makes it difficult for the Light to be recognized, known and understood.

Our Christian light in the darkness is not necessarily what it appears to be and how it would be expected to shine. Sometimes light only appears to shine in the darkness when in fact there is no real source located in that appearance. Consider further this analogy from the observing world. Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity describes how gravity can distort the path of light, altering its trajectory; for example, the sun’s gravity bends the light from other stars, and thus their light is distorted on a different path that alters their light’s trajectory, making those stars appear to be in a different location than they actually are—sometimes misrepresenting that they still exist. How much the light is deflected by such gravitational pull will determine the relative location of its source, the reality of which may remain ambiguous or a mystery, unobservable in its true form.

This relativity also parallels what happens to the light of the gospel. Our contextualized and commonized biases create a gravitational influence that distorts the uncommon Way of the Light and alters the relational progression of its whole Life, whereby the inconvenient Truth of its source is relegated to ambiguity by the relativity of a gospel in diverse conditions. The general relativity of our gospel has emitted light from a diversity of disciples and discipleship that has deflected their definitive essential source in whole-ly Jesus in likeness of the whole-ly Trinity.

Our existing theology and practice face clarification and correction by coming face to face with the integrity of the Word, who faces us with normalizing, reforming or transforming in our theology and practice. His relational purpose is to uncover the relativity of our gospel, so that the light of the gospel’s Source in the uncommon Way, the inconvenient Truth and the whole Life can be known unmistakably face to face, then responded to in the primacy of relationship face to face, and, therefore, followed in reciprocal relationship together face to face. Since Jesus reconstituted the temple by tearing down the holy partition and removing the veil, we have direct access to the whole-ly God face to face. The new temple has become essentially the new template (contrary to old templates) for the new covenant relationship together face to face without the veil—temple into template for the new intimate involvement with the whole and holy God (summarized in the Hebrews manifesto, Heb 8:5-6; 10:19-20).

Therefore, only face to face in the primacy of relationship together composes the whole-ly template for theology and practice (1) that is congruent with the integrity of the Word, and (2) that unambiguously illuminates the Light of the invariable gospel, and thus (3) that provides the sole template for all disciples to be compatible in their discipleship with whole-ly Jesus.

The global church in its diverse condition is in critical need of this urgent face-to-face care for its correction. As Jesus’ followers, if we are not relationally involved face to face with the whole-ly Word in the Light of the gospel, what does this indicate about our theology and practice? This interrelated, interdependent process of clarification and correction then necessarily extends to verifying the condition of existing disciples and discipleship.

Vetting Disciples and Discipleship

As we continue to deliberate on our clarification and correction, there is a standard process that is typically not found in Christian contexts: vetting. Today, vetting has become much more visible in the global context of politics and economics, which is increasingly needed as old assumptions are challenged and no longer can be counted on as reliable or even valid. Yet, the global church and its sub-churches are noticeably absent in the vetting process, even though judgments and related accountability have been exercised through the years. They have either ignored or at least lacked vetting the integrity of their disciples and the veracity of the disciples they make. These unvetted disciples have quantified the majority shift of the latest Christian composition from the West to the Two-Thirds World, without any other measure qualifying the veracity and integrity of these followers of Jesus.

The intrusive reality of whole-ly Jesus throughout his earthly life and function was that he consistently vetted any and all disciples claiming to “Follow me.” His ongoing relational purpose was to vet the qualitative relational significance (not quantitative) of their discipleship in his paradigm for discipleship (Jn 12:26), so that they would truly “be face to face where I am” in whole theology and practice. Without this vetting process, the hermeneutic door is opened “wide” and interpretations made “easy and more convenient” (as in Mt 7:13), which results in a diversity of disciples who misrepresent “Follow me” in a diverse condition of discipleship that distorts “being where I am.” These so-called disciples have replaced the whole-ly template of face to face with Jesus in the primacy of relationship together, so the inconvenient truth is “I never knew you” despite the claims of their dedicated discipleship (Mt 7:22-23).

The vetting by whole-ly Jesus was the uncommon way with the inconvenient truth for the whole life. The integrity of his disciples and the veracity of their discipleship can only be vetted on this basis, using the measure of the whole-ly template face to face. In lieu of this uncommon inconvenient whole process of vetting, Christians and their churches cannot appeal to traditional efforts at accountability as long as their theological anthropology is reduced and their view of sin is not centered on reductionism. Without this whole-ly basis, such accountability has its primary focus on what we do behaviorally from outer in, making secondary who and whose we are face to face; thus it focuses on measuring up to Christian standards, conforming to a code of ethics (or old templates), to the Rule of Faith and/or to the normative practices of a church, denomination or viewpoint. With all good intentions, this all comes at the expense of the primacy of relationship together face to face foremost with the whole-ly Trinity and, inseparably, with the church family in likeness of the Trinity. Holding Christians accountable on the basis of a reduced theology and practice leave them in a default mode of their ontology and function, which are unable to account and be accountable for the whole theology and practice of Jesus’ whole-ly disciples.

Moreover, in a theology and practice revolving around ‘by grace alone’ (sola gratia), the diversity of disciples today ironically testify to a variable condition of ontology and function that has not fully received God’s relational response of grace to their reduced condition. Their underlying condition subtly remains unchanged due to either (1) having that pervasive weak view of sin that doesn’t encompass the depth of their condition that God’s grace responds to, or (2) taking advantage of a common view of God’s grace by exercising liberties in variable practice and/or by assuming that grace allows latitude in practice. This all emerges from an inconspicuous underlying dynamic implicitly assumed that, in effect, God’s grace can or has to be earned by Christian practice. This is one of the old and present assumptions made by Jesus’ followers that needs to be vetted.

Obviously, such a subtle practice counters sola gratia based in the whole-ly template of face to face, but it also subtly overlaps with sola fide (by faith alone). The sole relational work of faith that Jesus made conclusive for his disciples (Jn 6:29) is the primacy of relational trust in face-to-face relationship together. This sola fide in its whole-ly template is countered by disciples who get into diversifying the primacy of relational work face to face with secondary works (e.g. works of serving and ministry). The occupation, likely preoccupation—for example, engaged by the other disciples in contention with Mary—are works used to define their persons and determine their value (evident in the early disciples, Lk 22:24). Sola fide face to face is always countered when our theological anthropology defines us in reduced ontology and function, which then justifies Christian practice that always counters sola gratia face to face. Accordingly, all this emerges and unfolds when the Word face to face (the face-to-face integrity of sola scriptura) is not the sole determinant of our persons, relationships and churches in uncommon wholeness (as Paul made nonnegotiable, Col 3:15). This missing sola clarifies and corrects the other solas and provides the whole-ly basis to vet face to face the integrity of all disciples and the veracity of all their discipleship.

The Integrated Measures for Whole-ly Disciples

One reason that vetting is not considered an urgent need is how routine discipleship has become. By routine I mean that discipleship is not distinguished in following the relational progression of whole-ly Jesus but has replaced this whole-ly template with anything less and any substitutes, and is thus unable to be distinguished beyond that routine. The common thread intertwined in the existing diverse condition of Christians today, even among postmodern Christians and the emergent church movement, is the routinization of discipleship. In all these differences, the reality is that discipleship has not emerged distinguished with whole-ly Jesus.

The measures for distinguishing whole-ly disciples are integrated by and in these claims:

Based on the inconvenient Truth of the gospel, embodied in the whole Life and enacted in the uncommon Way by whole-ly Jesus,

we can only claim his gospel (not other variations) by claiming fully its relational outcome;
we can only claim his gospel’s whole relational outcome by claiming the cross of whole-ly Jesus (not any Jesus);
we can only claim his cross (not as event or doctrine) by claiming Jesus’ relational progression behind the temple curtain to destroy the holy partition;
we can only claim his relational progression having destroyed the holy partition by claiming our relational involvement with him in his pivotal action behind the curtain for the sole purpose to transform (not reform) us to the new in wholeness from inner out in only relationship-specific involvement face to face without any veil;
we can only claim transformation to the new of our wholeness without our veil by claiming face-to-face relationship together with the whole-ly Trinity (not any Trinity), who is vulnerably and thus intimately accessible without the holy partition;
we can only claim the relational reality of face-to-face relationship together with the whole-ly Trinity by claiming the experiential truth of our identity as whole-ly disciples in the Trinity’s likeness;
we can only claim our distinguished identity as whole-ly disciples in the Trinity’s likeness (with no substitutes) by claiming face to face the transformed relationships integrally equalized and intimate that embody together the whole-ly church family of the whole-ly Trinity.

Accordingly with nothing less and no substitutes, these integrated whole-ly disciples together unfold distinguished without ambiguity in relational progression intrusively into the human context at all levels to make whole (not merely reform) the human condition. This uncommon wholeness is the who and the what Jesus prayed for all his disciples together to be, and not to be anything less and any substitute.

Whole-ly Leadership

The integrated measures for whole-ly disciples apply with foremost significance to leadership, both in the church and the related academy. The leadership the church and the academy use will be the disciples and discipleship they get, which certainly has far-reaching influence on the shape of Christian identity. If the church uses ordinary leaders trained by the academy—not to be confused with the opposite of extraordinary—the church gets ordinary disciples and routine discipleship. If the church uses leaders in reduced ontology and function learned from, reinforced in and sustained by the academy, the church will get fragmentary disciples and discipleship rather than the wholeness needed for the essential condition of the church and its persons and relationships.

The primary function of leaders is to fulfill their calling to be whole (like all disciples) in the primacy of relationship together face to face. The primacy of this whole-ly template for leaders was illuminated by Jesus intensively for Peter in their summary interaction: “Do you love me? …Lead my sheep” (Jn 21:15-19). In Jesus’ relational language, love is not about what a leader does for Christ, notably sacrifice in serving, but the intimate depth of relational involvement face to face. This is the primary function of leaders to be fulfilled before they can “lead my sheep.” The role of the latter is their secondary function, which can only be fulfilled when the secondary is integrated into the primary (PIP). Unfortunately, for many leaders the secondary of what they do in their role becomes their primary focus, the occupation of which diminishes, minimalizes and renders without significance the primacy of face-to-face involvement in relationship together of whole-ly love.

The (pre)occupation with the secondary becomes professionalized as a vocation, in which having a job and keeping it becomes a common self-concern among leaders. Consider, if the academy were both centered on whole theology and practice and involved in the Word’s relational language and terms, how many teaching positions based on referential information would be of significance and still exist? In contrast to face-to-face involvement in the relational progression of the primary, such self-concern subtly regresses into self-interest of creating an image or a brand that promotes their style of leadership. That self-interest also revolves around the concern to be relevant, which shapes relevance by the secondary over the significance of the primary. Since this self-interest unavoidably engages a comparative process between leaders, as it was with the early disciples this self-interest requires the individual’s abilities and resources in the secondary to determine their person’s self-worth and leadership value. This self-determination inevitably regresses into self-justification by leaders asserting contextualized and commonized biases (exposed in Jesus’ manifesto, Mt 6-7), in explicit and implicit conflict with Jesus’ sword against reductionism.

The pressure to be relevant and to be productive is ongoing for leaders. This pressure comes from within church leaders and also from those they lead; yet, the latter source is likely the result of the former’s leadership. Without clarification and correction of this condition, what composes church leaders will compose those churches. Nicodemus, an elite religious leader and teacher, was shocked to learn from Jesus that he essentially was obsolete (Jn 3:10). By not understanding the transformation to uncommon wholeness and its primacy for “the kingdom-family of God,” everything else Nicodemus knew and taught was irrelevant and thus obsolete. This condition is exposed for leaders when clarified and corrected by the whole-ly Word. Paul further clarified and corrected what leaders need.

How is a minister of righteousness unmistakably distinguished from others appearing as “ministers of righteousness” (e.g. 2 Cor 11:15)? Not by their gifts, resources, role-performance or any other outer-in measure (as in metaschematizo, 11:13-15). Based on outer-in perception and assessment, Paul said the telos (end, goal or limit) of ministers will be determined by the workings of how they define themselves and thereby determine their function, specifically in how they do relationships and lead in church (“Their end will match their deeds.”). Church leaders defined from outer in cannot be distinguished from others in a comparative process, no matter what credentials they have; even Jesus had difficulty being distinguished among Jewish leaders when subjected to a comparative process rooted in outer-in terms. In other words, Paul makes the theological anthropology of church leaders a basic issue in church leadership and a basic antecedent needing to be congruent from inner out for leading the new creation church family (cf. Phil 2:1-5; 1 Cor 12:12-13). This builds on Jesus’ new relational order for leaders (Mk 10:42-44) and points to what in churches is always primary to Jesus (Rev 2:23).

This theological anthropology of whole ontology and function for the person and persons together as church is nonnegotiable for Paul (1 Cor 4:6). The new creation is not open to be defined and determined by human terms and shaping (Eph 4:22-24; Col 3:9-10; 2 Cor 5:16-17). Only the uncommon wholeness of Christ brabeuo (“rules” as the only determinant) for the whole person and relationships composing the church (Col 3:15). Just as Paul holds himself accountable for his wholeness (cf. 1 Cor 15:9-10), he firmly holds church leaders accountable for theirs because, for all of them, their wholeness is inseparable from the embodying of the church in whole ontology and function (Col 3:15; Eph 2:14-15; cf. 1 Cor 3:21-23). The new creation functions only in the inner-out dynamic in the qualitative image and relational likeness of whole-ly God, the transformation which emerges from anakainoo (restored to being new again in one’s original condition, Col 3:10) and ananeoo (being made new from inner out, Eph 4:23). The responsibility for engagement in this process of transformation is reciprocal in only relational terms—not conceptual in referential terms, even with concern for the notion of sanctification. On the one hand, all persons being transformed by the Spirit are responsible for their ongoing relational involvement. On the other, church leaders are further responsible for what they share and teach (as Paul implies, Eph 4:20-22) since their definitive purpose and function is the katartismos (“to equip, prepare,” from katartizo, to restore to former condition for complete qualification) of church members to embody the whole ontology and function of God’s new creation family (Eph 4:12-13). The role of equipping and preparing is perceived in secondary terms, which is fulfilled in diverse ways by leaders in diverse condition. But the function of restoring to a whole condition cannot be assumed by church leaders without their reciprocal involvement in the process of anakainoo and ananeoo, no matter how “gifted” they are; nor can the former be assumed as an experiential truth and relational reality for church leaders simply because they are engaged in the role of equipping.

Paul assumes for church leaders in their purpose and function in katartismos that their own persons have been and continue to be anakainoo and ananeoo. If their ontology and function are not whole, then their theological anthropology has shifted (even by default) to a reduced ontology and function incongruent with the new creation; consequently they no longer have functional significance for the embodying of God’s new creation family and the experiential truth of the gospel of wholeness, much less to assume a leadership function. Church leaders (including in the academy) need to understand that katartismos has functional significance only in dynamic interaction with their anakainoo and ananeoo, and that this ongoing interaction is requisite for their ministry to be integral for embodying the church as the pleroma of Christ, the whole-ly God’s new creation family. On no other basis can ministers of righteousness be distinguished.

In Paul’s transformed ecclesiology, church leadership in the new creation family is a new creation of those who are defined and determined by whole ontology and function, not by their roles and resources. These prominent gifts of the Spirit cannot be claimed apart from direct relationship with the Spirit. Thus, these persons are in reciprocal relationship face to face with the Spirit for the ongoing involvement together necessary to build (oikodome) God’s new creation family in embodied whole (pleroma) ontology and function, which integrally involves their own person with persons together in transformed relationships face to face both without distinctions and the veil. With this leadership the church is alive in the new relational order and grows in wholeness to maturity (teleios) as the pleroma of Christ (Eph 4:12-13). Therefore, Paul both expects this uncommon wholeness in church leaders and holds them accountable to be transformed persons who are agape-relationally involved in transformed relationships together that are conjointly equalized and intimate (Eph 4:14-16; Gal 5:6; 6:15).

In what condition do we locate leaders today, and what they are doing in their leadership? Churches and the academy need to be complete in vetting their leadership, along with vetting those training for leadership under the assumption that they have been called to such a role.

The early disciples struggled to establish the primary function of their leadership that integrated all the secondary into the irreducible function of the nonnegotiable primary. They would have progressed much more readily if they had followed the lead of Mary. To review for our deeper attention:

In her last recorded interaction with Jesus (Jn 12:1-8, par. Mk 14:3-4), Mary took the lead among all the disciples present by opening her heart for the full profile of her person to make intimate connection with Jesus in the involvement necessary for face-to-face relationship together without the veil, in its primacy of nothing less and no substitutes. By her leadership with the whole-ly template, she illuminated the relational reality of the whole relational outcome from the gospel of whole-ly Jesus, which Jesus amplified as the practice vital for all disciples proclaiming the gospel. By her uncommon leadership Mary also demonstrated that discipleship is composed by this primary function of face-to-face relationship together in uncommon wholeness; her intrusively inconvenient lead action clarified and corrected the servant model used by the other disciples that gave priority to serving over relationship (countering Jesus’ paradigm for discipleship, Jn 12:26). In their contextualized and commonized biases, the other disciples represent any leaders who would compose discipleship both without the relational reality of “Follow whole-ly me face to face” and thus with a veil at relational distance from “where I am whole-ly,” thereby reduced and common leaders who are not the whole-ly disciples who could “make whole-ly disciples.”

Does our diverse condition of disciples and discipleship make evident that we follow the lead of the other disciples over Mary, and thereby have leaders preoccupied with the secondary over their primary function? Jesus keeps asking them “do you love me?”

Whole-ly Disciples for the Reduced and the Common

Recently, the two main characters in the comic strip “Prickly City” anxiously reflected on the current political fragmentation in the U.S. and the world. As they look up into the dark sky of night, one asks the other, “What do you suppose God is thinking of us at the moment?” The other replies nervously, ‘I’m praying that He’s not paying that much attention.”[1] Obviously, ashamed of our divisive condition, they are hoping for change without looking for clarification and correction. If Christians today seriously reflect on the fragmentation (misleadingly considered diversity) of the global church and its persons and relationships, I wonder how many implicitly or unknowingly also hope that God is not paying much attention to our existing condition, instead of seeking his clarification and correction; or perhaps are hoping that Jesus isn’t weeping over us about “what would bring you wholeness” (Lk 19:41-42).

In 2017, the anniversary of two pivotal events are observed that have had defining influence for our fragmentation, the 500^th anniversary of the Reformation and the 10^th anniversary of the iPhone. This theology and technology, respectively, have preoccupied us in the secondary at the expense of the primary function of face-to-face relationship in wholeness together. As a substitute for this whole-ly template, an expanding diversity of expression has found opportunity to shape persons, relationships and their churches into old templates composed by reduced ontology and function, all of which result in their fragmentation under the guise of a misleading unified nameplate of global or Internet. The iPhone (including all other smartphones), for example, has become the primary mode for interaction, generating simulated relationships and creating illusions of involvement; moreover, it has become a primary source for information, identity formation and opportunities promoting differences—whose use fragments the scope of everyday life and becomes addictive as intended by its developers. How has the iPhone changed your church and its persons and relationships?

What has emerged from this pivotal theology and technology, and continues to unfold in our persons, relationship and churches, is our routine fragmentation, which many Christians would consider to be cultivating our diversity and giving opportunity for differences to have visibility and be heard. Before we celebrate diversity in the global church, however, we need to understand that the notion of diversity is shaped by contextualized and commonized biases. Diversity emerges when our persons and function are defined and thus determined with outer-in differences by a reduced theological anthropology, which relegates our condition and relationships to a comparative-based value without wholeness, embedded in these outer-in differences made primary for who, what and how we are. These are the contextualized assumptions subtly made from a commonized bias, which ignores or prevents seeing whole persons from inner out. Diversity, therefore, affirms this reduced ontology and function, and forming diversity (e.g. by race) thereby sustains this fragmentary human condition in stratified relational order (as in race discrimination or racism). This makes diversity part of the problem for the human condition rather than a solution; and Christians should not continue to affirm diversity to add to the problem and contradict what we are in the world for. We must address this reality of diversity used as a convenient substitute for making whole all persons, peoples and nations.

The misleading diversity of human differences veils the differences that still compose the human condition, which then exposes the ontological simulations and functional illusions from reductionism that the misguided effort for diversity serves. The diversity of persons, peoples and nations—in the church’s composition and its mission—does not get to the heart of their ontology and function in the image and likeness of the whole-ly Trinity. Consequently, the essential relational consequence, the diverse condition of our ontology and function becomes a substitute for the whole ontology and function of the global church family, in which “there is no longer Jew or Greek, or any other racial-ethnic differences, there is no longer slave or free, or any other socioeconomic class differences, there is no longer male and female, of any other biological, intellectual and related resourceful differences, for all of you together are whole-ly in whole-ly Jesus” (Gal 3:28).

In this critical period of fragmentation in our world, therefore, all Christians are faced with this urgent question: Is our own diverse condition in the global church today the likeness of the whole-ly Trinity that Jesus prayed definitively for (Jn 17:20-23) and that Paul declared conclusively we would be transformed into (2 Cor 3:18; Eph 4:24; Col 3:10-11)?

Our purpose in life and what we are in the world for as whole-ly disciples emerge, unfold and mature as we “Follow me” to the reduced and are involved “where I am” in the depth of the common, whereby we are distinguished whole-ly. Following the uncommon Way must be by the inconvenient Truth of his intrusive relational path, and thus following his whole Life must be according to the whole-ly template face to face in the primacy of relationship together—the first priority into which all the secondary is integrated without variation, as if negotiable. For whole-ly Jesus, righteousness—composing the whole who, what and how the person is—and peace are invariably integrated (“kiss”) from the innermost to the outermost, and his righteousness determines the path for his steps (as in Ps 85:11,13). His steps must not be reduced to referential quantitative terms from outer in but compose his vulnerable presence and relational involvement only in relational terms from inner out; thus for us today “your footprints are not seen from outer in” (Ps 77:19). This is the irreducible relational reality of discipleship and the invariable experiential truth of the gospel, both of which are constituted whole-ly by the Word.

Though we cannot see his footprints from outer in, the palpable Word (inseparably and irreducibly integrated with the Spirit) continues to be present and involved in their intrusive relational path only by whole relational terms. In spite of their footprints not seen, their post-ascension critique of diverse churches was disclosed to us for the relationship-specific purpose for our churches and their persons and relationships needing to “Follow me face to face” in the primary of the new whole-ly template, which composes the new covenant relationship together only by whole relational terms from inner out without the veil. The full profile of the face of the Trinity has been disclosed, and continues to be disclosed (as Jesus made definitive, Jn 15:26; 17:26), in the primacy of relational terms face to face and thereby distinguished only whole and uncommon. His true disciples follow only the whole-ly Jesus as his whole-ly disciples—those also distinguished uncommon in their whole theology and practice. When his disciples are distinguished as whole-ly, they will also “testify along with the Spirit [martyreo] because you have been involved with me face to face” (Jn 15:27); and, therefore as direct participants, their witness will make the significant difference needed for the transformation of those who are reduced and can impact the depth of the common for its redemption at all levels.

In explicit contrast and implicit conflict, the gospel of whole-ly Jesus has been variably interpreted by diversifying contextualized bias and fragmenting commonized bias. The relational consequence for whole-ly Jesus is to conflate the gospel with secondary (even tertiary) variations—presumed to be primary and thus vital—that have reduced the whole gospel to a fragmentary condition. On the basis of such relative gospels, a diversity of disciples in diverse discipleship now compose the identity of Jesus’ followers, even with various reforms and renewals. All these variations have inconspicuously displaced his whole-ly disciples (such as Mary) who are transformed to nothing less and no substitutes of his new creation church family. It is no surprise then that Mary is not highlighted in these diverse compositions of the gospel. Rather than being the disciples for the reduced and the common, this diverse condition has relegated them as disciples of the reduced and the common.

Reformation and renewal, past and present, at best have only simulated transformation and function in subtle illusions of wholeness, which is the missing sola in the original Reformation. Whole-ly disciples are involved face to face in relational progression with the whole-ly Trinity, while all other disciples relatively engage only various parts of Jesus or the Spirit that are not in distinct relational progression with whole-ly Jesus and the Trinity. The unavoidable reality for these other disciples—like the other disciples in contrast to Mary—is that they don’t remain static in their discipleship but are regressing in “Follow the whole-ly me” and being involved “where I am with the whole-ly Trinity.”

Therefore, before we say anything positive or think favorably about the diversity of the global church, we have to pay closer attention to the palpable Word and be accountable to their presence and involvement with the following inconvenient Truth:

1. How many doctrinally correct churches, who resist false teachings and persevere through hardships and/or persecutions for the sake of Jesus’ name, does he (with the Spirit) critique for “forsaking your first love face to face” in what’s primary together over any secondary matter no matter how urgent—as he clarified and corrected the church in Ephesus (Rev 2:4)?

2. How many popular churches, who have established an esteemed identity, does he critique by finding their “brand” insignificant, incomplete, lacking the wholeness distinguished “in the relational terms of my whole-ly God”—as he clarified and corrected the church in Sardis (Rev 3:2)?

3. How many inclusive churches, who are active in the broader community, does he critique because they tolerate the diverse practices of persons and relationships shaped by reductionism, and thereby form hybrid theology and practice in the church—as he clarified and corrected the church in Thyatira (Rev 2:20ff)?

4. How many resourceful churches, who depend on the amount of what they have to define their identity, does he critique for having a ‘thinner and lighter’ gospel (or some variation of a prosperity gospel) that determines the significance of their practice as neither hot or cold, thus which is useless even in prosperity terms—as he clarified and corrected the church in Laodicea (Rev 3:15ff)?

If this is how the palpable Word assesses our diversity today, on what basis do we in any way celebrate the global church’s diversity? More important, can we continue to justify in any way this diverse condition, except by exposing our diversifying contextualized bias and our fragmenting commonized bias?

The palpable Word continues to be vulnerably present and relationally involved for our ongoing clarification and correction in order to “Follow me whole-ly.” Yet, for us to follow whole cannot be diversely fragmented by contextualization, and to follow uncommonly cannot be reduced to human variations by commonization. To follow whole-ly, by necessity of its integral nature, involves the relational progression that has been de-contextualized and de-commonized, and thereby transformed to the new in whole relationship together equalized and intimate, face to face without the veil. The distinguished face of the whole-ly Trinity requires in likeness the unveiled face of whole-ly disciples for their discipleship to be distinguished unmistakably in the whole-ly template’s primacy of relationship together face to face that composes the Trinity’s whole-ly family. This whole relational outcome emerges, unfolds and matures distinguished beyond all the contexts of the common by the relational progression of disciples in whole theology and practice, not distinguished in the diversity of reformation and renewal but solely in the uncommon wholeness of transformation—nothing less and no substitutes.

In ongoing contrast to and conflict with anything less and any substitutes, there only are the whole-ly disciples who “Follow whole-ly me” transformed in their ontology and function from the innermost to the outermost, thus who are relationally involved face to face “where I am” to compose the primary in their theology and practice, so that they are truly distinguished in their whole-ly identity as “my disciples.” For all other disciples, to his manifesto he adds intrusively, “I know your dedicated service and successful ministry; you even have a popular reputation of being alive.…Wake up to reality…for I have not found your discipleship complete in my uncommon wholeness” (Rev 3:1-2). For them, the hermeneutic challenge continues to need urgent response.

For the epistemological, hermeneutical, ontological and relational work still needed urgently today, “Let anyone who has an ear listen to what the Spirit of inconvenient Truth is saying to the diversity of churches and all their persons” (Rev 2:7,11,17,29; 3:6,13,22). Be transformed in relational progression with the missing sola!

[1] Created by Scott Stantis, Los Angeles Times, June 3, 2017.