Ch 3 Transitioning from Words to the Word

The experiential truth and relational reality of our persons and relationships resonate just when distinguished by the Trinity. They resonate ongoingly solely when the Word is amplified. The composition of much theology and practice, however, amplifies words instead of amplifying the Word—words which reduce the truth and relationship with the Trinity from their experiential reality. This results in a harmony and fidelity analogous to sound bites, which could reverberate in our minds but can’t resonate in the innermost of our persons and relationships for our theology and practice to be significant.

Such a result is illustrated in a “Peanuts” comic. The boy Linus (the comic’s residential theologian) shares a fact of central interest with his sister Lucy, who is jump roping at the time. Linus: “Here’s something I’ll bet you didn’t know.” (Lucy keeps jump roping.) “The Bible contains 3,566,480 letters and 773,893 words!” (Lucy keeps on jump roping without a word to Linus, nor even looking at him for a moment.) Finally, Linus says, “You’re just not interested in theology, are you?”[1] In contrast to Linus’ words transmitting information to Lucy, listen to Dennis in the comic “Dennis the Menace,” who communicates this vulnerable prayer as he kneels at his bed before going to sleep: “I’d kinda like to make this person-to-person. Do ya mind?” His prayer seems to resonate with his mom as she listens in wonderment, while his dad appears somewhat bewildered or amazed.[2] Our young friends illuminate the transition from words to the Word, and what has significance in our theology and practice.

This chapter focuses on the essential transition from those words to the Word. By the nature of the experiential truth and relational reality, this transition is necessary in order for our theology and practice to have the significance to resonate in our persons and relationships. For this transition to be essential, it must by necessity involve going through pivotal stages that will increasingly require the harmony and fidelity of the Word, as well as progressively demand our response and involvement to be composed by the Word (“person to person”) rather than by words.

If country music is indeed ‘three chords and the truth’, then even more so Christian music should resonate as ‘three chords and the experiential truth’. For this composition to resonate in our theology and practice, it has to be in the clear harmony and fidelity of the Word. As the three inescapable issues of harmony and the three unavoidable issues of fidelity (discussed in chapter 2) get resolved in our persons and relationships, we are faced with the Word to constitute the Truth for our persons and relationships to experience beyond mere words. That is, we are faced with the Word as the Truth (Jn 1:14; 14:6), who communicated face to face in relational language to counter the words of truth in referential language—“person to person, do ya mind?” Thus, we are faced with this pivotal stage of transition from referential truth to experiential truth, so that our theology and practice will be significant to resonate in our persons and relationships.

When the first persons in the primordial garden possessed the truth, it was unmistakably communicated by God in relational language. This truth was then countered by the subtlety of referential language informing them that “you will not be reduced…” (Gen 3:2-4). By accepting this information as the truth, those persons in effect revised the truth they first experienced with God to only the reference of it, thereby opening the door to compose truth in other terms not in harmony and fidelity with the Word. The question we are faced with at this point in human history, just as those persons faced in the beginning, is: “Did God really say those words?” (Gen 3:1) in a language that revised the original language of how God spoke, thereby opening the door to the underlying question of “What did God really mean in saying those words?”

The genius of reductionism encompasses how it manipulates persons with words. Referential language is its most subtle means. For example, when human language shifted from poetry to prose, the quantity of words displaced the quality of words, whereby referential language dominated—which we see prevailing subtly in Christian theology and practice. Accordingly, anyone who hears the Word in a “foreign” tongue is encouraged, relegated or forced to listen to words, whereupon one asks “What did those words really mean?” This is how referential language transposes the Word to words, and then composes the truth with what we think it really means. The common result prevailing in theology and practice, past and present, is referential truth. From the beginning, referential truth emerged from those “whose eyes will be opened and who will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Gen 3:5). Since this defining beginning, referential truth has been composed in variable human terms determining “what God really means by those words.”

More specifically, John 1:1 either declares in referential language or communicates in relational language that “The Word became flesh and lived among us.” How many of you have this in your theological files as the referential truth of the incarnation? Based on that, how do you experience “the Word becoming the flesh of his person from inner out and living among us as that whole person for the primary purpose of relationship together”? No amount of words can resonate in the harmony and fidelity of the Word to embrace this experiential truth in relationship together. At most, all there is to embrace in referential language are the words of referential truth. But, and this is critical for our transition, the genius of reductionism is to disguise the words of referential truth to appear no different than the truth experienced in the Word, and many Christian traditions of theology and practice have formed on this reduced basis. Jesus exposed the difference in the resounding critique: “This kind honors me with their lips but their hearts are far from me…teaching human-shaped words as doctrines. You abandon the Word and hold to your traditions in referential language” (Mk 7:6-8). Later, the palpable Word exposed a prominent church dedicated to what amounted to the referential truth, without embracing the primacy of experiential truth directly involving the Word in relationship together (Rev 2:2-4). From the early church through church history, the truth was an ongoing issue in fighting false doctrines. Creeds were developed to separate the truth from falsehood, yet essentially did not distinguish experiential truth from referential truth—with the common result, even in reciting creeds today, that “those people honor me with the words of their lips but their hearts are far from the Word.”

The Reformation returned to the primacy of the Word, yet for the most part did not clearly distinguish experiential truth from referential truth, thus did not fully transition from words to the Word. As evident throughout church history, the truth is that referential truth never resonates in the harmony and fidelity of the Word—no matter that it may not appear any different from the experiential truth of the Word. That’s the genius of reductionism.

Words can be comprehensive or shorthand versions of a language lexicon. As descriptive as words in referential language can be, they are unable to define the essence of the Word beyond descriptive information. As accurate as that information can be, it is insufficient to determine the truth of the Word, whereby to experience the truth of the Word beyond face to face, vulnerably to “person to person if ya don’t let your mind control ya.” In other than words, the Word in relational language takes our person preoccupied with referential truth to our innermost resonating with the experiential truth heart to heart, person to person in the primacy of face-to-face relationship together.

Listen to the harmony and fidelity of the Word (taken from Dt 5:4; Num 6:25-26; Ps 80:3; 2 Cor 4:6) used to compose this song:

And in contrast to all the words you’ve heard about ‘grace’ as referential truth, listen to the harmony and fidelity of the Word (adding Ps 67:1) used to compose this song:

Would you like to transition from referential truth to experiential truth? Then, you need to transition from the words prevailing in theology and practice to the Word. That will require transitioning from referential terms to relational terms—the next pivotal stage.

For our persons and relationships to truly experience the Word, then their underlying means of theological anthropology must by nature (not out of obligation) be in the harmony and fidelity of the Word composed in relational language. That means our theological anthropology must be composed in relational terms rather than referential terms. The shift to relational terms is evident when we are resolving the three issues of harmony integrated with the three issues of fidelity in order for our persons and relationships to be vulnerable from inner out. If you haven’t already discovered, this is not an easy transition since it takes us to the experiential level—shifting from the dominance of our minds to make vulnerable the prominence of our hearts. To face the truth, we cannot be in denial. To experience the truth, we cannot avoid being vulnerable.

The reduced state of the human condition functions in referential terms, which is the default mode even for Christians no matter how much change they’ve undergone. In his vulnerable prayer, Dennis added “Do ya mind?” because he knew that “person to person” wasn’t normal for praying—at least in the prayers he heard. Referential terms amplify the counter-relational workings of reductionism. Subtly, the lexicon for referential terms has been composed by variable human shaping from every context of persons all over the world. Even unknowingly, persons use this lexicon to define their identity and to determine their function. Today, the most common purveyor of referential terms is from the information on the internet. I think it is a critical error to consider all of this information as neutral, because its terminology is formed by the reductionist process inherent to the human condition, thereby reducing us even as our default mode.

Given the dominance of referential terms entrenching us even in the most common human contact (such as texting), how do our persons and relationships transition to relational terms? The short answer is to transition to the Word, which, again, is no easy transition given the pervasive shaping by referential terms of our everyday life.

The Word in relational language incarnated the person from inner out, whose relational quality amplified the integral face of the Trinity to live among us. In no other words, the Word incarnated the trajectory of God more vulnerably than ever before, now intimately present and involved in the Word’s vulnerable relational path. In contrast to those in likeness who didn’t accept him (Jn 1:11), how do we receive and embrace the Word beyond merely words, that is, to resonate in our hearts for significant relationship together?

The Word also unequivocally made it conclusive (beyond definitive) that “I am the way, and the truth, and the life” (Jn 14:6). His declaration is typically considered definitive in referential terms, but how does that resonate in our hearts to experience in the significance of relationship together with the Trinity? “No one connects in relationship together with the Father except through the Word. If you know the Word in relational terms, you will…” (Jn 14:7). How so?

The Word incarnates in his whole person the Way, the Truth, and the Life. In contrast and conflict with merely the information from those referential terms, the Word illuminated in his person (1) the relational Way to wholeness, (2) the experiential Truth of the relational outcome vulnerably involved with the Way, and (3) the relational reality of our persons and relationship together in wholeness by “person-to-person” involvement directly with the whole-ly Life. In relational terms alone, the Word amplifies the Way, the Truth, and the Life in the relational quality necessary by their nature to resonate in our hearts the Word’s experiential truth and relational reality. Anything less of the Way and the Truth, and any substitutes for the Life reduce the integral face of the Trinity and the wholeness of our persons and relationships, therefore rendering all variations in theology and practice without significance.

The Word vulnerably revealed his whole person to us solely in relational terms, and his relational purpose for sharing his person would not be fulfilled in referential terms. It is crucial for us to understand this relational process, because it is countered by the human condition just as the primal sound was displaced by prose in human discourse. The relational quality of the Word is revealed in its incomparable harmony and fidelity, which must be discerned to distinguish the Word from mere words. This discernment requires qualitative sensitivity and relational awareness, functions which are usually lacking in adults but are found in unbiased little children. This reality was the basis for the Word jumping with joy with the Spirit, while saying “I thank you, Father…because you have hidden our persons from the wise and the intelligent and have revealed us to infants: (nepios, Lk 10:21). The harmony and fidelity of the Word resonate only with persons who are vulnerable from inner out—whose essential function resonates with the significance of their musical beginning.

By his conclusive relational terms and process alone, the Word connects with us, ongoingly is involved with us, and is the only basis for our reciprocal response (1) to be compatible with the Word’s theological trajectory and (2) to be congruent with the Word’s functional relational path. To be compatible and congruent in our theology and practice, our persons and relationships must by nature (not the obligation of referential terms) be vulnerable to the Word, so that words don’t preoccupy us with the secondary and allow us to be in our default condition of relational distance. This vulnerable transition to relational terms is unlike the path that the early disciples engaged with the Word. They didn’t know the Word in relational terms to possess in their hearts the experiential truth and relational reality of the Trinity (Jn 14:9-10), despite the fact that they had variable referential terms about the Word in their mental possession.

Like the early disciples, our default condition today is relational distance, which is the most common mode of function in our daily life. Our default condition and mode emerge from reductionism’s counter-relational workings, and this influence subtly directs our persons and relationships away from being vulnerable from the inner out. That process fragments our persons and relationships to outer in, and this is consequential for reinforcing and sustaining our default condition and mode in two common ways.

The first way exposes the further genius of reductionism by the use of what appears as relational terms in discourse but in reality are only presenting substitutes for the underlying function of referential terms. Recently, there has been a marked increase of relational terminology in theology and practice. ‘Relational’, not to be confused with the significance of relationship, has become a signpost to be relevant in contemporary theology and practice—perhaps the buzzword for reverberating in the mind. Yet, when examined closely, the depth of the term usually goes no further than its referential counterpart. Moreover, maintaining boundaries in abusive times has qualified relationships with constraints to mitigate being vulnerable from inner out; the inadvertent relational consequence is that relational distance is maintained and our default condition sustained. Relational in referential terms, in other words, is not in harmony and fidelity with the Word—even if its use reverberates in practice—resonating the whole person vulnerably living among us only for the relational purpose and outcome of reciprocal relationship together face to face, person to person, heart to heart.

The first way, which is subtly consequential for reinforcing and sustaining our default condition and mode, points to the second way: Answering the need to change from inner out for the sake of new relationship together in wholeness by the subtle avoidance of change and denial of its need in our persons and relationships. Those who function within the limits and constraints of the status quo in their life, for example, will overtly or covertly deny any need for change, significant change. Those who want more, but are reluctant to pursue it for whatever reason, will typically avoid change in their person and relationships—even when advocating for general change. Such persons in these categories will either resist or avoid the definitive blessing of the Word on God’s family, with the relational consequence of remaining reduced in their default condition and mode.

The Word’s definitive blessing (Num 6:24-26) has reverberated in the words of God’s people, from its origin to current practice. Yet, it rarely resonates in our hearts, because the blessing is rendered in referential terms that are unable to communicate the significance of the Word for the experiential truth and relational reality of the blessing’s relational outcome. This relational outcome is communicated whole only in its original composition in relational terms.

The face of God is not a referential term informing us about God. Paneh (face) denotes the vulnerable presence of the person, not merely as a profile but present from inner out. Face (e.g. as a symbolic image or an anthropomorphism) could certainly be important as a referential term, but it does not have the relational significance to resonate in our hearts, and thus warrant the imperative to seek after always (cf. Ps 27:8; 105:4). In paneh as the relational term, however, it is not mere light that shines on us but the very heart of God. Furthermore, when God’s face is illuminated, the vulnerable presence of God is distinguished in the intimate involvement of face-to-face reciprocal relationship (the covenant relationship together), not in unilateral relationship with the people of God.

Thus, in the beginning, the face of God constituted this relational equation: For human persons from inner out to be in vulnerable face-to-face relationship together, both with the face of God and with each other. God’s definitive blessing is based on these relational terms, and it is relationally enacted solely for this relational purpose in order to complete this essential relational equation. Therefore, as God’s face is vulnerable face to face with the persons and relationships in God’s family, this vulnerable connection unfolds in the only relational outcome of God’s definitive blessing: “give you peace.”

‘Peace’ is a term connoted by various emphases (e.g. in Greek terminology) and augmented by many words (e.g. by pacifists and others lacking peace). The most significant meaning for shalom is the well-being of persons and relationships in nothing less and no substitutes but wholeness—the wholeness constituted in the God of peace (cf. 1 Thes 5:23; 2 Thes 3:16) and by the peace of Christ (Jn 14:27; Col 3:15). Yet, this wholeness is not merely “given” unilaterally by God’s face. ‘Give’ is another term connoted by various emphases (e.g. a selfless act or quid pro quo) and augmented by many words focused on that to do and how to do it. So, what does God enact in giving and how does God enact it?

The ontology and function of God defines the face of God’s theological trajectory and determines the relational path of the Word’s presence and involvement (as in 2 Cor 4:6). God’s ontology and function are whole when distinguished by the integral face of the Trinity, whose relational quality constitutes the Trinity’s wholeness that illuminates “the Face who give you wholeness.” Only on the basis of whole ontology and function does the relational process of the Word unfold to this relational outcome.

In relational terms, the Trinity is neither giving unilaterally nor giving to get something back (quid pro quo). Giving by the Trinity has a relational function in wholeness for the relational purpose of wholeness for persons and relationships to receive. For this relational outcome to unfold, however, change is necessary for those persons and relationships. The Hebrew term for “give” (siym) has various shades of meaning that signify to bring change and establish a new relationship together. In relational terms, the Trinity’s definitive blessing responds face to face to bring redemptive change (the old dies so the new rises) in order to establish the new relationship together in wholeness. God’s peace is the wholeness created in the qualitative image and relational likeness of the Trinity, and later covenanted with Abraham (Gen 17:1-2), and now fulfilled by “the Word vulnerably present and intimately involved with you.”

The relational path and outcome of the Word do not unfold for us unless we transition from words in referential terms to the irreducible and nonnegotiable relational terms of the Word. Anything less and any substitutes for the Word are composed by words in referential terms. And we cannot reduce or renegotiate the Word down to our terms and expect to have face-to-face relational connection—“person to person, do ya get it?” Moreover, ongoing face-to-face relational connection with the integral face of the Word will not go deeper until we transition from relational terms to the relational reality of reciprocal relationship together in wholeness—the wholeness distinguished by the Word. This deeper transition challenges if not confronts our words.

Acknowledging God’s face and affirming the integral face of the Trinity are essential in the transition to the Word. Some consider this face merely a common anthropomorphism, but this dismissal of face has relational consequences not taken into consideration. Though referential terms may not dismiss this face, those words also have relational consequences. Acknowledging and affirming this face in relational terms are necessary to avoid relational consequences with God, yet this alone is not sufficient for the face-to-face relationship together to be the relational reality resonating in our hearts—thus insufficient for our theology and practice to be significant. The transition from words to the Word doesn’t navigate on a wide road but on the Word’s narrow relational path (Mt 7:13-14, 21-23; Lk 13:24-27).

Face to face must be integrated functionally with person to person. That is, in reciprocal response to the Trinity’s vulnerable presence and intimate involvement, our response must be vulnerable with our whole person from inner out. The ancient poet summed this response: “I have sought your face with all my heart” (Ps 119:58, NIV, qualifying Ps 105:4). Person to person doesn’t emerge to be distinguished with face to face until “all my heart” distinguishes the person. Anything less and any substitutes from outer in neither resonate in the person nor resonate for the person presented to the Trinity for their reciprocal relationship together to be a functional reality—not the representation of words. Because of the subtle workings of reductionism, the ancient poet requests: “Search me, O God, and know my heart, test me and know my thoughts” (Ps 139:23). And all in the church should know that ‘anything less and any substitutes’ exists even in those increasing in “your love, faith, service, and patient endurance”—all exposed in their hybrid theology and practice because “the Word is the one who searches minds and hearts” (Rev 2:19,23).

Face to face integrated functionally with person to person is the essential relational equation necessary for the relational reality to be the experiential truth of nothing less and no substitutes. The Trinity has fulfilled (in the beginning through the present) the first half of the relational equation with the integral face of Trinitarian persons; the other half of the equation waits to be fulfilled by our person(s). The amplified Word constituted this relational equation in wholeness “in the beginning” (Gen 1:1; Jn 1:1-2); but evolving from the beginning, this relational equation has been incomplete because the other half of the equation has not functioned in the essential relational quality to fulfill it. This is the relational consequence of reductionism and its counter-relational workings, which encompasses all of sin. Yet, the composition of sin in most theology and practice does not define sin as reductionism, therefore such theology and practice become determined inadvertently in some way by the sin of reductionism. This is the genius of reductionism, which Christians often don’t recognize because of a weak view of sin that doesn’t understand the truth and reality of sin as reductionism. Our condition today reflects the relational consequences.

A weak view of sin can also compose theology and practice using relational terms. How so? Let’s examine Peter further for one example of how this happens. When Jesus call his first disciples to “follow me,” Peter humbly responded by telling Jesus “Go away from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man” (Lk 5:8). In Peter’s view, he rightfully didn’t measure up to the Lord, yet was his view of sin inclusive of sin as reductionism?

The defining key for discipleship is “Follow me,” which is definitive only in relational terms. What the Word amplifies, however, is conclusive solely in person-to-person relationship together. Peter certainly came face to face with Jesus in his discipleship, but was that integrated with person to person to complete the relational equation essential for discipleship? His underlying view of sin is critical for answering this question and for understanding Peter’s theology and practice composed even using relational terminology. Face to face, Jesus made the relational imperative for discipleship unmistakable in order to fulfill its relational equation: “Follow me,” that is, not necessarily “the Lord” or any other name ascribed to him for his identity, but “must follow my whole person, and where my person is, is how you must be relationally involved person to person” (Jn 12:26). Was the discipleship composed in Peter’s theology and practice using relational terminology in harmony and fidelity with the Word, such that he fulfilled the relational equation made irreducible and nonnegotiable by the Word?

Later, when Jesus queried his disciples about his public identity, he really wanted to know how they specifically saw his person (Mt 16:13-15). Peter answered with a confession of faith that first used the name most prominently given to Jesus, and then he used the relational terminology typically associated with him: “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God” (Mt 16:16). Peter’s view of sin isn’t evident in his response—a response which reflected the Father’s revelation to him (16:17)—but the question remains if he fulfilled the Word’s relational equation.

Peter’s bias (both contextualized and commonized) soon did appear to expose his view of sin when the Word further revealed vulnerable matters. Thus, the Word confronted him for being incompatible with God’s improbable theological trajectory and being incongruent with the Word’s vulnerable relational path (Mt 16:21-23). What transpired is that Peter reduced Jesus’ person by the stereotype in his bias about the messiah; what also was exposed is the lack of significance in his relational term for the Son—the person lacking qualitative relational significance.

The person of Jesus lacking qualitative relational significance may have a face in relational terms with the result to be face to face with the Word, but person to person does not and cannot emerge to have as the relational reality with the Word. Peter demonstrated this at a pivotal interaction with Jesus’ whole person. As the Son prepared to fulfill his relational purpose on the cross for the Father (cf. Mt 26:38-44), he gathered his family together for their last table fellowship (Jn 13ff). At this pivotal relational connection, he made his person the most vulnerable to complete his relational involvement of love with them to unequivocally fulfill the relational equation person to person (13:1). The Son’s person vulnerably opened further to them by involving them in his footwashing (13:2-5). His whole person made the depth of his relational involvement of love with them the relational reality, but only by his person and not by serving them (as those words are commonly interpreted), nor by his primary role as “Teacher” and title as “Lord” (13:12-15)—the related roles and titles many Christians assume in their discipleship presumably in following Jesus. What did our colleague, friend and brother Peter do in this pivotal face to face with Jesus’ whole person involved with him person to person, without the relational distance created by roles and titles?

Peter had his role also (student) and title (servant) to compose his identity as disciple. Therefore, face to face could not be integrated with person to person to complete the relational equation with the Word. “You will never wash my feet” (13:8). How could his Teacher and Lord do such a menial thing, and how could Peter participate in such shameful behavior? Based on how he defined himself and Jesus, he needed to wash Jesus’ feet. When the Word amplified the crucial difference between just face to face and face to face integrated with person to person—“Unless I am relationally involved person to person with you, you have no partnership (meros) with me in fulfilling the relational equation essential for our reciprocal relationship together in wholeness”—Peter’s weak view of sin without reductionism was exposed. Accordingly, since he defined his person and presented it to Jesus in reduced terms, plus defined Jesus’ person and engaged relationship with him in those terms, all demonstrated his lack of harmony and fidelity with the Word because his view of sin could not resolve those three inescapable and three unavoidable issues discussed earlier. Without the view of sin as reductionism, Peter’s discipleship was reduced to face to face at best. “Then, Lord, not just my feet but my hands and my head as well” (13:9).

Obviously, Peter didn’t integrate face to face with person to person in order to fulfill his half of the relational equation. For this reason alone, the Word later keeps pursuing Peter’s person with “Do you love my person?” and “Follow my whole person” (Jn 21:15-22)—still waiting for Peter’s person to fulfill his half of the relational equation with the vulnerable relational involvement person to person essential for their reciprocal relationship together to be whole.

The relational reality of the Word is irreducible; it is the ultimate fulfillment of God’s definitive blessing, who face to face “brings the change necessary person to person for new relationship together in wholeness person to person” (Num 6:26). Therefore, we need to recognize that the transition to the Word is nonnegotiable, and thereby we are accountable to the Word for this:

The transition to the Word is incomplete when just face to face. The transition to the Word amplifying the integral face of the Trinitarian persons becomes the relational reality when face to face is integrated by person to person to fulfill the essential relational equation of reciprocal relationship together in wholeness, nothing less and no substitutes.

This is the only theology and practice that resonates in the experiential truth-filled harmony and fidelity of the Word.

Referential terms and words depend on their quantity to get their information transmitted to others. Relational terms could depend on their words to get across their message to others, but too often those messages are received merely as information taken from the Word to compose our theology and practice. In all this, what is not recognized and then not received, and thus lost, are the relational messages communicated face to face by the Word directly to us person to person.

Basic to all communication—even in discourse transmitting information—are specific messages, sometimes explicit but usually implicitly expressed. All communication has not only a content component but also a relational aspect that helps us understand the significance of the communication’s content. This relational aspect is found in the three relational messages, which are distinctly expressed by sounds, gestures or indirect words. In his relational imperative for his disciples to “listen carefully and pay attention to what’s communicated to you” (Mk 4:24; Lk 8:18), the Word implied these relational messages. Therefore, it is crucial for these three relational messages to be discerned in order for deeper understanding of the message communicated. In the three relational messages, a person communicates (either intentionally or unintentionally) to others one or all of the following messages:

1. Something about one’s person; for example, how one sees, defines or feels about oneself.

2. Something about how one views the other(s) in the interaction; for example, how one sees, defines or feels about them.

3. Something about their relationship together; for example, in what way one defines that relationship and/or what it means to that person.

Any or all of these three relational messages always qualify the content component of all communication; and they give us a deeper basis for knowing that person and a further understanding of how to respond back.[5] So, it is essential for us to distinguish the relational messages both in what we hear from others and what we say to others.

These three relational messages are basic to relational language and thus intrinsic to the Word. All communication from the Word amplifies vital relational messages to us, thereby to qualify the content from merely words face to face to the Word person to person. Receiving these relational messages gives us integrally (1) the qualitative-relational basis for knowing the Word as the experiential truth, and (2) the whole understanding of how to respond back to the Word for the relational reality of “new relationship together in wholeness.”

On the basis of the three relational messages, identify what the Word is communicating in the following:

1. “Follow me”—what is Jesus saying about his person, then about your person,

2. “Don’t you know me after all our time together?”—what is Jesus saying about

3. “Do you love me?”—what is Jesus saying about his person…about your person…then about the
relationship?

4. “Unless I am relationally involved with you person to person, you have no partnership with me.”—what is Jesus saying about his person…about your person…about the relationship?

Given the relational messages communicated by the Word, how would you assess what Peter received and understood from the Word in each of these four interactions?

When we understand the importance of relational messages to qualify the content of communication, we are able to embrace the experiential truth and relational reality of the Word resonating person to person. The Word amplifies the harmony and fidelity of the relational quality inherent to persons, whose identity (ontology) is defined and function is determined by the qualitative image and relational likeness of the Trinity—just as music resonates the primal sound of human’s relational quality. Therefore, by the Word’s vulnerable presence and intimate involvement are communicated the relational messages clarifying:

1. What is primary for the Word, and integrating all else (the secondary) into the primary.

2. What is integral for the Word, and thus necessary to be in harmony and fidelity with the Word.

The experiential truth and relational reality of the Word’s relational messages clarify these two nonnegotiable and irreducible dimensions essential for defining our theology and determining our practice.

What is primary for the Word is the whole person from inner out, who is vulnerably involved in the primacy of reciprocal relationship together person to person. Anything else, including all aspects of serving (Jn 12:26), is secondary and must be integrated into the primary, that is, if we want to have harmonious fidelity with the Word. The relational language of the Word constitutes the relational involvement of love as the primary priority of the person(s), whose love first and foremost is vulnerably involved in the primacy of relationship—just as Peter had to learn even while face to face. As the church in Ephesus also discovered in their stringent theology and rigorous practice, there are always relational consequences whenever the secondary takes priority over the primary.

To establish the primary of the Word as the ongoing priority, the primary must be distinguished from the following:

All else must be seen, considered and acted on as secondary—not necessarily unimportant but not be confused with the primary—and thereby responded to by integrating that secondary into the primary in order to maintain and continue in the primary priority of the Word.

Without receiving the relational messages of the Word and embracing their essential priority, secondary matters will easily assume priority over the primary and thereby render the person and relationship to less significance, perhaps overlooking them with good intentions of serving. However, the relational messages of “Follow me” and “Do you love me?” are unavoidable when we truly transition to the Word.

The church in Sardis, like many mega-churches today, reverberated with a reputation of being alive. But, the Word gave it a wake-up call because, in truth and reality, the church didn’t resonate in what’s integral for the Word (Rev 3:1-3). In spite of Peter’s stature as an apostle, do you think he resonated in his discipleship with what’s integral for the Word (cf. Paul’s assessment, Gal 2:11-14)?

The Word wept over his people because “If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace” (Lk 19:42). This peace is not composed by common terms used in the human context, because the Word’s peace is uncommon, uncommon peace to all that is common (Jn 14:27). Since the Word was fulfilling the definitive blessing of the integral face of the Trinity (Num 6:24-26), the peace amplified by the Word person to person constituted the relational quality of wholeness—nothing less and no substitutes for persons and relationships in the qualitative image and relational likeness of the Trinity’s wholeness. Integral for the Trinity is the incomparable ontology and function of the Trinitarian persons as whole yet integrated in relationship together as One. Any reduction of this ontology and function (e.g. by common-izing) fragments the Trinity and renders the Trinitarian persons and their relationship together without wholeness. The essential integration of person to person for wholeness is integral for the Word, therefore the Word never allowed Peter to reduce his person and ongoingly held Peter’s person accountable to be whole in person-to-person relationship together—“Do you love me person to person in reciprocal relationship?”

The Word amplifies in relational messages the primacy of the relational involvement of love. Based on the uncommon ontology and function of the Word, love is the relational quality of the whole person vulnerably connected to and ongoingly involved with others distinctly with the qualitative sensitivity and relational awareness integral to the Word. Contrast this involvement with love focused on what to do for others rather than primarily on their person. When our person from inner out becomes integrated in the depth of involvement in relationships person to person, we embrace the relational messages that transition our persons and relationships to the Word. When our person and relationships are transformed to wholeness in ontology and function, we emerge whole to resonate what’s integral for the Word—and resonating the relational messages of love to others over any of the secondary.

The integral face of the Word integrated person to person brings us the relational outcome of “the change necessary for new relationship together in wholeness” (siym and shalom in Num 6:26). The Word resonates when this relational outcome is our experiential truth and relational reality.

The Word was amplified in the flesh face to face in order to resonate for relational connection person to person, who otherwise would simply become an object of our beliefs, worship and discipleship. Some persons made that vulnerable connection, while others chose not to. “To the persons who relationally responded to the Word person to person, he constituted them in the relational outcome to become children of God and belong in his family” (Jn 1:12). Resonating is a key function for this relational outcome, the idea of which may reverberate in our beliefs, worship and discipleship but lack the harmony and fidelity of the Word resonating in the experiential truth and relational reality of this relational outcome.

The Word is amplified also in the metaphor of the shepherd, who gathers and leads his sheep together as one flock (Jn 10:2-6,14-16). Like the shepherd and the sheep, the Word resonates with persons who follow him person to person into one family together. If the Word didn’t have the relational quality to resonate in persons from inner out—for example, “calling each person by name…as his own”—those persons wouldn’t be moved to respond vulnerably to the Word person to person into one family together. This is the relational outcome initially covenanted with Abraham (Gen 17:1-2), insured by God’s definitive blessing for “new relationship together in wholeness,” and now fulfilled by the Word person to person to constitute the Trinity’s new creation church family (Lk 22:20; Jn 11:52; 17:20-23; Eph 2:11-22; 4:23-24; Col 3:10-11). Like the function of the shepherd, however, those persons would not be moved to respond into one family unless the Word resonated person to person with them. Like the sheep, however, persons need to discern the voice of the Word and not listen to words, in order for the relational outcome to be this new creation church family.

Accordingly, the Word resonates in the relational outcome of persons who have vulnerably come together person to person in the experiential truth and relational reality of the church family in wholeness. Beyond merely reverberating like various churches do, this church is the integral family in the qualitative image and relational likeness of the Trinity, just as the Word’s family prayer amplified to resonate in his sheep (Jn 17:20-26);

When the Word challenged Peter’s relational involvement of love in reciprocal relationship together person to person, his relational purpose was for this relational outcome. Whenever Peter responded to the Word person to person, this would be his relational outcome also. On this relational basis, the Word further challenged Peter to “nurture my sheep person to person and grow my family in the new relationship together of wholeness” (Jn 21:15-17). Peter eventually did integrate face to face with person to person for the Word’s relational outcome to resonate as the experiential truth and relational reality for the church family (e.g. 1 Pet 1:3; 2:9-10).

Like Peter, Christians and churches have struggled to transition to the Word person to person in order to resonate with significance in our theology and practice. How well do you think churches have experienced this relational outcome? And how would you assess the relational reality actually existing in churches and whether they resonate this relational outcome? Do you think the Word weeps over us for not being vulnerable with “who gives us wholeness?”

The significance of our theology and practice will resonate only when their relational outcome resonates the Word vulnerably in our person and relationships together as the Trinity’s church family (Eph 2:21-22; 2 Cor 3:16-18; Col 3:15). In Paul’s ecclesiology (notably composed in his Ephesians epistle), he made definitive the church in wholeness together as one, which the Word constituted in relationship together with the Trinity. As the new creation church family, Paul made it imperative for the church to “Be very careful then how you live” because of the subtle workings and influence of reductionism (Eph 5:15). On the basis of the experiential truth and relational reality of the Word’s relational outcome, Paul further makes imperative for the church family to use the inherent function of music as the soundboard to speak the truth and resonate the clearest for the church’s persons and relationships to be whole together with the Trinity: “Function whole in reciprocal relationship with the Spirt for the relational purpose to sing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs as the soundboard among yourselves person to person, singing and making melody to the Lord in your hearts, giving thanks to God the Father at all times and for everything in the harmony and fidelity of the Word” (Eph 5:18-20, cf. Col 3:16).

In Paul’s ongoing integral fight both against reductionism and for the gospel of wholeness (Eph 6:10-18), the relational purpose of his theology and practice revolved on the Word’s relational outcome resonating in the persons and relationships of the church family. Given the pervasive presence and influence of reductionism, his relational purpose was irreducible and his relational process nonnegotiable so that the integral face of the Word could resonate clearly in the new creation relational outcome person to person with the Trinity.

When this new creation relational outcome resonates in our person and relationships together as one church family with nothing less and no substitutes for wholeness, we complete the transition to the Word and fulfill our half of the relational equation to be whole—face to face integrated person to person.

Therefore, where are you, church? And what are you doing here? Does the Word weep over you because you still don’t understand what brings you wholeness, or does the Word resonate in your relational outcome?

[1] Created by Charles M. Schulz, Los Angeles Times, August 22, 2016.

[2] Created by Hank Ketcham, Los Angeles Times, July 1, 1977.

[3] Composed from the Word by T Dave Matsuo and Kary A. Kambara. Printable sheet music available online at www.4X12.org.

[4] Composed from the Word by T. Dave Matsuo and Kary Kambara. Printable sheet music available online at www.4X12.org.

[5] The conceptual dynamics of human communication are discussed in a classic study by Paul Watzlawick, Janet Helmick Beavin and Don D. Jackson, Pragmatics of Human Communication: A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies, and Paradoxes (New York: W.W. Norton, 1967).