Ch 4 The Depth and Quality of Our Witness

One confesses to the other, “Honestly, church is where I was taught about generosity, caring, giving.” The other responds back with suspicion, “Uh-huh…then why do so many evangelicals love Trump?” The first one answers hopefully: “Some folks lost their way in exchange for political power, but true believers know better.” The other immediately challenges: “Uh-huh. Then why are they staying quiet?” With concerned uncertainty, one answers: “Maybe they’re busy being generous, caring, giving”—whereupon, with rolled eyes the other says in disbelief, “Un-huh….”[1]

“True believers” should know better what living our faith means, and that these are compelling times to witness for the gospel. But “maybe they’re” just not being accountable in their theology and practice. We, the church, are facing this crossroads.

In a court trial, witnesses are called to testify on behalf of someone or some issue. The relevance or irrelevance of testimony greatly depends on the significance of the witness. Certainly, the integrity of a witness is crucial for any testimony. What is even more vital for a witness’ significance is how closely the witness has participated in the matter on trial to determine the level of testimony. The person closest becomes the key witness to testify. In the court of public opinion, this process doesn’t usually rule because biases obscure integrity and dismiss the relevance of facts, while stereotypes determine the significance of witnesses and who among them is the key.

All Christians and the church testify in the court of public opinion—on many issues pertaining to God or not—whether aware of their witness or not. Those who are aware either shape their witness according to public influence, or they determine their witness in spite of public opinion, perhaps even countering public influence. Especially consequential in our witness, all Christians and the church are witnesses in the court trial of the human condition and its redemption. Who has integrity in their witness? Who has the significance to give relevant testimony? Based on their participation, who become key witnesses?

Amplified by the Spirit, the Word definitively established all his disciples in the court trial of the human condition—in which the Word and the sin of reductionism are adversaries, with the former prosecuting the latter: “You will be my witnesses” (Acts 1:8; Lk 24:47). Whether the trial will end with redemption and salvation (the redemptive transformation and reconciliation) greatly depends on the significance of our witness. So, in this trial “my witnesses” can only be key witnesses. How so?

In the court of public opinion, what reverberates correlates directly to the pervading mindset. In the trial of the human condition, only testimony that resonates from inner out has significance. Therefore, the Word resonating from inner out is the key for our witness to be the key as “my witnesses.” Yet, the key is determined solely by the Word in relational terms, irreducible and nonnegotiable to referential terms. Thus, to be the key witness requires being able to personally testify the following:

1. To have fully transitioned to the Word from inner out, which requires the whole person in harmony and fidelity with “Follow me, my whole person.”

2. To have fulfilled our half on the relational equation for following the Word, which involves our person vulnerably connected ongoingly with “me” in order to be “my.”

This makes the testimony of “my witnesses” distinguished just by the primacy of reciprocal relationship together, which resonates with the Word in irreplaceable relational dynamics.

To be “my” assumes the relational response to “me,” which cannot be assumed because the relational response is only distinguished by the relational dynamics integrally made definitive and constituted by the Word. What are these integral relational dynamics that can neither be assumed nor defined and constituted by words?

Whether witnesses are key witnesses depends on their level of participation in the matter on trial. When the Word highlights “witness” (Greek martys and its verb martyreo), the term denotes one who has knowledge of a matter and can confirm it because of participating in the matter. In the Word’s relational language, what is highlighted is not an observer of facts or information, no matter how accurate and true the observation. For example, testifying with the propositional truths of the gospel do not constitute a key witness because the level of participation doesn’t go deep enough. The Word highlights who, not what, and illuminates the relational participation of the witness directly with the Word. Beyond words, “my” is inseparable from “me” since they both embrace the same relational dynamic of involvement—the involvement required in order to constitute key witnesses not as observers but as persons vulnerably involved in reciprocal relationship with the Word.

The relational involvement of “my witnesses” is vulnerable because it is engaged from inner out. This vulnerable involvement unfolds in relational dynamics defined and constituted by the Word—strictly on the basis of the Word’s relational terms and not by any other words in referential terms. Relationship with God is not unilateral, thus God doesn’t do all the work in the relationship, nor do we. Yet, God does define the terms for relationship together, which are irreducible and nonnegotiable to our terms; the latter terms usually make us and the relationship less vulnerable.

The most-used term for God’s relational terms is “commandments,” which commonly get reduced to referential terms. When asked which commandment is the greatest, the Word centered on the relational involvement essential to God’s relational terms: “love the Lord your God with your whole person,” then “love your neighbor as your person” (Mt 22:36-39); the Word amplified that “these two terms for relationship together are the relational basis for all the law and the prophets” (v.40)—and rightly “more important than any and all burnt offerings and sacrifices” (Mk 12:33). Later, the Word interjected a pivotal relational term (“new commandment”) that is integral to the two greatest ones: “love one another. Just as I have loved you, on this relational basis you also be relationally involved to love one another” (Jn 13:34). Moreover, it is this relational involvement of love that distinguishes “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples following me, and thus are my witnesses” (13:35).

All the definitive terms for relationship together with God center on the relational response of love, and they converge in the vulnerable relational involvement of love—unfolding from inner out in the relational dynamic of reciprocal relationship together person to person. The Word vulnerably initiated the intimate relational involvement of love with us to experience his relational reality—not merely to know, but “just as I have loved you…” (cf. Jn 15:9). Peter’s feet were washed and his love questioned, so that he would vulnerably fulfill his half of the relational equation and be distinguished as “my witness.” Now the other half of the relational equation also needs to be fulfilled by our person vulnerably from inner out in reciprocal relational involvement of love—not by our sacrifices, offerings, or what we do in obedience—first with God and next with one another. Fulfilling our half of the relational equation then clearly distinguishes us as “my disciples,” who “follow me” in the reciprocal relational involvement of love to be “my witnesses”—persons vulnerable from inner out who testify against reductionism in the human condition in order to be relationally involved in love for our neighbor as our own persons.

Among Christians, love is routinely defined in terms other than the vulnerable relational involvement of having intimate connection both with God and with each other. That happens when words substitute for the Word, with the consequence of reducing love to terms without relational quality. However, love is not something we do, nor is love merely giving something to others, no matter how important that may be. Just as the Word clearly enacted, love is the vulnerable relational involvement of the person extended to other persons (not objects of giving), who then can be ongoingly shared with others together in relationship. The NT agape and OT hesed amplified by the Word illuminate how we are to be relationally involved vulnerably with others. This relational involvement is not understood merely from teachings, nor based on following a code of conduct or formula. This vulnerable involvement is first the relational reality experienced from “follow me” in relationship together. Without experiencing his vulnerable involvement of agape in ongoing intimate relationship, disciples can only generate love by what they do—which was all Peter did in response to “Do you love me”—and not by the relational involvement based on their own relational experience, as exposed by “you will never wash my feet.” This makes imperative the importance for us to define Christ’s love not merely by what he did on the cross, sacrifice notwithstanding but not definitive of love. These are the quantitative reductions of love, the words of which fragment the qualitative relational nature of the Word constituting the Trinity. And the narrative of the Word is the love story of the Trinity’s relational involvement extended to us to distinguish “my disciples,” and thus expanded and multiplied in us to resonate as “my witnesses.”

The Word used the metaphor of the vine and the branches to describe this relational process (Jn 15). We tend to perceive this as a static structural arrangement that is necessary for quantitative results (“fruit”). This shifts the focus from the dynamic process of intimate relationship that the Word makes definitive. Three times he mentions the reciprocal effort “to remain” in each other (15:4,5,7). The word “remain” (Gk. meno) means to remain, dwell, abide; when applied to another person, it denotes the relational involvement necessary to remain connected. This is the same word used by Jesus to describe his authentic (Gk. alethes) disciples intimately involved (“hold,” meno) with his “teachings,” that is, logos, his essence, his person (Jn 8:31) as distinguished by the Word (Jn 1:1ff).

When there is this depth of relational involvement, there are distinct relational outcomes experienced in this relational process. One outcome is to know God intimately, which the disciples at that stage didn’t experience as the relational reality (Jn 14:9). A further outcome is the vulnerable experience of uncommon (apart from the ordinary) agape involvement, not only received from the Son but also from the Father (Jn 15:9; 17:26). These relational outcomes underlie the fruit his disciples bear. This fruit does not reflect the quantitative results of what we do; this fruit witnesses to the relational outcome of being intimately involved with the Word as “my disciples” (15:8). The specific relational outcome witnessed to is the experiential truth and relational reality of the relational quality of the Trinity’s agape involvement. This fruit of the vine, therefore, can only be seen illuminated as the agape involvement with others, which the Word made definitive to clearly distinguish “my disciples” (Jn 13:35) who resonate as “my witnesses.”

Furthermore, “to remain” is a reciprocal relational effort because it involves the relationship requiring relational work by each one. The Word remains in us with his agape involvement, as he further shared about the progression of the vine (15:9). But he also said, “Now remain in my love.” God doesn’t do all the relational work, nor do we, but we have our part in the relationship. This relational equation is fulfilled only by ongoing reciprocal relational work. Our relational work includes obedience – the relational act of submission (15:10). This may seem like a contingency to experience his love or to be his friend (15:14). Yet, it is crucial for discipleship to understand that these really are not conditional statements but relational statements. What comes first in these verses is his love, not our obedience (15:9).

Obedience is the relational way we vulnerably submit our whole person from inner out to him for intimate relationship, which includes our submission in ontological and epistemic humility. This relational submission of obedience has the relational outcome of further experiencing his love (Jn 14:21,23). Love is not some substance he gives us and thus we possess it; love is who and what we experience from the Word in how the Trinity is involved vulnerably with us and treats us. Love is not a feeling; it is what we relationally experience of the Trinity in our heart that increasingly transforms it and resonates in and from it. Love is not something we do, or even that the Word does; it is what we ongoingly share together reciprocally in intimate relationship. Through the relational submission of obedience our whole person is made vulnerable to him for this relationship. This reciprocates how the Son also defines his own obedience to the Father for the purpose of this relationship and remaining in his love (15:10b).

In his closing prayer to the Father for all his disciples, the Son shifted from the vine-branches metaphor to the relational reality the metaphor symbolized: the intimate relationships uniting them together as one family by family love (Jn 17:20-23). The bond of these intimate relationships, which is rooted in the relational process engaged in agape involvement, witnesses to the world of the experiential truth and relational reality constituted by the Word (vv. 21,23). The Word redefines our quantitative reductions of what witnessing involves; and he radicalizes our common notions about evangelism by deepening our focus from merely what he did to the relational quality distinguishing his intimate relational presence and involvement of love.

Certainly, if not yet obvious, to be at this depth level of witness necessitates remaining (participating) ongoingly in his love. We cannot underestimate this relational issue in our discipleship of how we “follow me” because a great deal hinges on it: the experience of complete joy for the individual disciple (Jn 15:11), the integrity of the corporate life of his followers as the church, and what the world can expect from “my witnesses.” Despite our struggles with secularism, modernism, postmodernism, and any other -isms, we need to give greater attention to this relational issue—both for our condition in divisive times and for the fragmented contexts of the human condition.

Key witnesses are “my,” who by integral relational dynamics are vulnerable witnesses relationally involved with “me.” They are the only significant witnesses to testify in the trial of the human condition and its redemptive transformation and reconciliation because of having distinguished the following:

2. Incorporating this reciprocal relational involvement of love with each other to distinguish the Word’s family.

3. Ongoingly being vulnerable with their person from inner out to address any sin of reductionism first in their own person and then each other for the church family to be whole (as in Heb 12:1; Eph 4:15-16; Col 3:14-15).

4. Extending their relational involvement of love to their neighbor in the human condition, as if their own person, in order to testify of the experiential truth and relational reality of the Word’s relational work of redemptive transformation and reconciliation, as well as the good news of the new creation relational outcome in nothing less than wholeness of persons and relationships together.

When these relational dynamics are integrally distinguished in the human condition, the relational equation is also multiplied to embrace humanity and all creation.

Therefore, “with the Spirit, my witnesses resonate with the hearts of all persons, peoples, tribes and nations in the human condition, as they sing the new song to follow me…” (cf. Lk 24:47-48; Mt 28:19). Yet, the new song is not a mere song that’s new (contemporary worship notwithstanding); the new song only resonates “speaking the experiential truth in the relational involvement of love” (Eph 4:15). Unlike country music’s ‘three chords and the truth’, speaking the truth in love is not an end in itself. Rather, with the new song functioning as the soundboard in relational harmony and fidelity with the Word, “we must mature in every way intimately involved with him…” so that “our reciprocal relationship together in wholeness resonates in the church family’s growth in expanding and multiplying itself up in love” (Eph 4:15-16).

By “testifying of the Word’s salvation…among all peoples” (Ps 96:1-3), the new song resonates the redemptive transformation and reconciliation of humanity into the new creation church family, which all of creation longingly waits for as nothing less and no substitutes (Rom 8:19-22). For this relational outcome to be the experiential truth and relational reality, our understanding of salvation (soteriology in theology) needs to be complete and our practice of evangelism needs to be whole to resonate the new song, which much theology and practice currently lack. This addresses us directly to the new creation that must by the nature of complete soteriology resonate in our persons and relationships.

By our sin as reductionism, our identity and function have been reduced and fragmented from their wholeness created in the qualitative image and relational likeness of the Trinity. Even if we have been forgiven of our sin, it is only the forgiveness of sin encompassing reductionism that redeems us to be transformed to wholeness and reconciled in the new creation of the Trinity’s family. If we have only been forgiven and not made whole in our identity and function, then at most we have experienced only half of salvation (a truncated soteriology in our theology) and remain fragmentary in our practice.

In truth and reality, if our forgiveness encompasses sin as reductionism and thereby have been redeemed from our sin (i.e. the condition of reduced identity and function), then by the nature of salvation we have been transformed from our fragmented condition to our new condition of wholeness. The experiential truth and relational reality of being saved from sin as reductionism constitutes being saved to whole ontology (identity) and function. We can’t have the former without also including the latter. This integral relational process and outcome are inherent to “the gospel of wholeness” (Eph 6:15), which resonate in the harmony and fidelity of the Word’s complete salvation.

If our witness of the gospel and our practice of evangelism are just about an incomplete salvation, we don’t have the depth in the integrity of our identity and function to be “my witnesses.” Without the depth of wholeness, our witness doesn’t have the credibility to sing the new song, to speak the truth in love to the human condition, and to resonate for its redemptive transformation and reconciliation. Thus, we all urgently need to examine the depth of our witness and to be accountable for our credibility.

Complete salvation fulfills the other half of salvation that unfolds in the redemptive reconciliation of our persons and relationships to the new creation family. This half of salvation not only frees us from sin as reductionism, it also raises up the new identity and function for which we are accountable to live ongoingly in wholeness—just as Paul made the relational imperative for the new creation church family in the qualitative image and relational likeness of the Trinity (Col 3:10-15; 2 Cor 3:16-18). The new identity and function, however, need to be unmistakably distinguished from common identities and functions that are often associated with Christians—even among the “true believers know better” stated by the conservative friend at the beginning of this chapter.

If we testify about only the first half of salvation without the other half, we misrepresent the Word. No matter how many words of truth support such testimony, the credibility of our witness has been compromised. The identity and function of “my witnesses” only have integrity in the complete salvation to wholeness—that is, the new of our identity and function as the relational outcome of our participation in the relational involvement of love with the Word.

The new creation identity and function are irreducible, and therefore nonnegotiable to our biases and shaping, as well as uncompromising to any other influences in our life. As discussed earlier about our theological anthropology (in Chap 2), in the new creation restoring the original creation, nothing less than being whole constitutes our identity (ontology), and no substitutes for living whole determine our function. Anything less and any substitutes are not the new creation—no matter how prominent in churches and among Christians—and render our identity and function to a default mode reflecting the human condition. The genius of reductionism and its counter-relational workings is to wire our brains with a mindset that (1) our identity hasn’t been compromised (“you will not be reduced”) and (2) our function hasn’t lost credibility (“you will be like God”). In contrast and conflict with the new creation, such a reduced condition of identity and function doesn’t redeem the human condition but in reality reflects, reinforces and sustains it.

The new creation constitutes identity and function from inner out, making secondary or irrelevant any matters from outer in. For our identity and function to be from inner out, any and all of our outer in must by necessity die in order for the new from inner out to rise (Rom 6:2-13; 8:5-14). These are the relational dynamics of salvation that integrally saves us from the old and inseparably saves us to the new. Like Peter, the new does not unfold without a struggle because the old has been deeply entrenched to define our identity and determine our function; and changing from the old can raise various feelings and concerns to block rising in the new.

The Spirit’s person, however, is present and involved in ongoing reciprocal relationship together for the relational purpose to help us in the vulnerable relational process to the relational outcome of the new creation (Jn 14:16-18,26; 16:13-15; Acts 1:8; 2 Cor 3:15-18; Rom 8:15-16; Eph 2:22). Thus, our identity and function are distinguished as the new creation first and foremost by our vulnerable relational involvement in reciprocal relationship together with the Spirit, that is, the person and not a force, a power or a notion of love. This relational involvement requires our person to be vulnerable from inner out. Why so vulnerable? Because the Word removes the veil from our outer in and the Spirit frees us from inner out to be vulnerable with our whole person—the only relational posture for the new creation ontology and function transformed into the image and likeness of the Trinity (2 Cor 3:16-18).

According to the Word, to be freed constitutes our persons to be vulnerable with the whole of who, what and how we are as the new creation, because the veil signifying our reduced condition is removed. Accordingly, to keep the veil on either by our choice or by default is to remain in our reduced condition—no matter what we claim and proclaim about the gospel. Therefore, singing the new song is essential for our identity and function to be whole as “my” with “me.” Pause now to reflect on the new song, composed in the key of the Word with the Spirit, and sung with Paul (made definitive in 2 Cor 3:16-18):

When our veils are removed, it is unavoidable for the new creation to be vulnerable in the human condition, which includes our condition as Christians in churches. For our identity and function to be vulnerable from inner out may appear to put us in a defensive posture. On the contrary, the experiential truth and relational reality of the new creation frees our identity and function—for example, from any anxiety or shame about our self-worth not measuring up—whereby we are able to embrace others in the relational involvement of love for their redemptive transformation to new creation wholeness also, and for their redemptive reconciliation to belong to the new creation family together (2 Cor 5:5,16-20). When we are vulnerably involved in this integral relationship of love, our identity and function resonate (1) to fulfill the depth of relational quality as “my witnesses,” and on this relational basis alone, (2) to expand and multiply the relational equation constituted by the Word to grow the new creation family.

However, the new creation is neutralized or rendered void in our identity and function whenever, for example, our identity is defined by what we do and have from outer in—that is, the veil is put back in place to mask our innermost—and our function is determined by secondary matters (as discussed previously). In other words than the Word, any identity and function based on the subtle yet prevailing workings of the outer in all counter the integrity of identity and function based primarily yet irreplaceably on the inner out; moreover, this fragments the new creation identity and function from wholeness and compromises the relational quality of their witness, thereby disabling the resonance of the new song. This may not be apparent, notably due to a reduced theological anthropology underlying our theology and practice. Yet, the subtleties of reductionism pervade the theology and practice in churches and related academy throughout the world. This is apparent in the wide-spread fragmentation of the global church (e.g. by denominations and brands)—fragmentation reflected also in local churches—and is reinforced and sustained by the prevailing referentialization of theological education into separated compartments.[3] Apparent or not, the reduced condition of our theology and practice rightfully raises questions for our identity and function about the significance of the gospel, and about the integrity of those who claim it, and the credibility of those who witness for it.

Once again, “Where are you?” and “What are you doing here?” are ongoing concerns amplified by the Word, and the Spirit is always involved to clarify, correct and convict from inner out.

Singing the new song with a compromised identity and function becomes merely a sound bite, which at best may reverberate the various words of salvation but can never resonate as the soundboard for the Word’s gospel of wholeness. The latter unfolds solely from the new creation ontology and function. This brings our persons and relationships together to another crossroads. Either we continue with our persons and relationships in the relational consequences of compromised identity and function, or we vulnerably involve our persons and relationships in the relational outcome of the new creation ontology and function made whole with nothing less and no substitutes. The path we take, by choice or by default, will determine the depth and quality of our witness in everyday life.

Our witness inevitably undertakes a path that either will reflect, reinforce and sustain the human condition, or will work for its redemptive transformation and reconciliation. With the nature of reductionism, there is no in-between path or hybrid theology and practice for our witness, because anything less and any substitutes for wholeness fall into a reduced version reflecting the human condition.

The human condition is certainly variable in its multi-faceted condition and effects on human life. But the sin of reductionism underlying the scope of the human condition does not have degrees of bad-to-worse, nor does it affect human life along such a spectrum. Sin has no such distinctions (Jas 2:10, cf. Gal 3:10), and wholeness cannot be shaped by any aspect of reductionism or it is no longer whole. The new song speaks the truth to the human condition only because it resonates the experiential truth and relational reality of the new creation, which even all of creation longs for (Rom 8:19-22). This resonance distinguishes the soundboard of the Word from sound bites of other words.

Most Christians don’t grasp the breadth of the human condition because they don’t understand its depth entrenched in reductionism. This mindset readily both limits the human condition to certain areas and underestimates the influence of reductionism even in our own condition.[4] Under these limits, how can we witness for the redemption of the human condition—before we can even testify to its transformation and reconciliation? Ideals have no significance for the human condition, and simulations only reinforce and sustain it. Even with the best of intentions, such witnesses are not “my witnesses” since they lack the experiential truth of what they have been saved from, much less the relational reality of what they are saved to. Lacking that credibility, how can a witness resonate in the human condition?

“My witnesses” resonate in the human condition because they are in complete (read whole, pleroma, Col 1:19-20; Eph 1:23; 3:19; 4:13, cf. Jn 1:16) harmony and fidelity with the salvation of the Word and his gospel of wholeness. This relational outcome emerges because “my witnesses” are vulnerably involved from inner out in the reciprocal relational involvement of love with “me” person to person. This relational experience resonates in the innermost of “my witnesses” because it resonates “my” relational quality constituted in “me.” Whenever relational connection is made, it resonates even in the human condition because it amplifies the primal sound that touches what is innate in all humankind. When that relational connection is made by the relational involvement of love, it resonates in the innermost of persons regardless of their condition because all persons were created in the qualitative image and relational likeness of the Trinity, and thus designed with the relational quality to be whole in relationship together. Without witnesses resonating from inner out by the relational involvement of love, persons in the human condition only have the testimony of words transmitted to them, and not the Word to embrace person to person for their experiential truth and relational reality of complete salvation.

Therefore, resonating is essential for our witness (1) to testify in the innermost to the relational quality of “my,” (2) which resonates what is constituted in the innermost of “me,” (3) who resonates what constitutes the wholeness of the Trinity in relationship together as One. In these trinitarian dynamics, only the significance of the primal sound in persons musically resonating as “my witnesses” has significance to “me” and to the human condition, because only the relational quality of this innate primal sound resonating gets to the innermost, first to be in integral harmony and fidelity with the Word and, then, for the complete salvation of the human condition’s redemptive transformation and reconciliation. Without exception, anything less and any substitutes are insignificant. Why, given all that has transpired in church history?

Along with reductionism, a common denominator residing in the human condition is music. Since the beginning, music has served as the central source and primary means of resonance among all persons, peoples, tribes and nations. Prose in human discourse has not duplicated it, in spite of any so-called linguistic advances in the human lexicon. The primal sound of music integrates the essential harmony and fidelity for the inherent relational quality of life. Thus, this resonates in the innermost of all human life because it touches the heart of what we all need, desire, if not long for and seek. The Word keeps amplifying these qualitative relational terms, which no quantitative referential terms can replace.

When their defining table fellowship concluded, Jesus led them in singing a hymn (Mt 26:30). It was tradition to sing praise antiphonally at the end of the meal. But, was Jesus merely observing tradition? Throughout the incarnation, the Word critiqued the practice of tradition when “their hearts are far from me” (Mt 15:8). The function of music has always served as either a sound bite or a soundboard, with the latter becoming a qualitative expression of the heart rather than the former’s quantitative expression of the lips (as the Word critiqued). Accordingly, singing at the end of their time had a greater purpose for the Word. What was that purpose? We need to understand the Word’s purpose because that purpose continues to unfold today, often in conflict with purposes composed by our words.

I strongly affirm that the Word anticipated what soon unfolded and thus prepared his disciples in their identity and function to fulfill the purpose the Word had for them and for all of us who “Follow me.” As the Word completed his relational purpose on the cross, the curtain of the temple was torn in two (Mt 27:51; Lk 23:45-46); this opened direct access to the relational quality of God for intimate relationship together (Heb 10:19-22). To make intimate connection with the qualitative presence and relational involvement of the whole of God (the Trinity), the Word and the Spirit had to remove our personal veil also in order for this integral relational process and outcome to resonate in the innermost of our persons and relationships together—thereby to transform us to the relational quality in the image and likeness of the Trinity (2 Cor 3:16-18).

This transformation, however, is not a singular moment of change but distinctly an ongoing relational process of transformation. As the writer of Hebrews made imperative for any person to join the family of God’s witnesses, we must actively and ongoingly disconnect from the sin that subtly entangles us and easily distracts us in reduced identity and function (Heb 12:1). This ongoing process requires a strong view of sin as reductionism, which then in forgiveness saves us from any fragmentation in our identity and function as well as inseparably saves us to wholeness.

The resonance of the Trinity’s relational quality is essential for any and all disciples to be distinguished unmistakably as “my disciples” (Jn 13:35). These are the persons who are vulnerably involved in the reciprocal relationship of love with “me,” so that they will resonate in the new song from inner out as “my witnesses.” By singing at the end of their table fellowship, the Word amplified the primal sound in their innermost in preparation for their hearts to be vulnerable to enact the musical witness of relational quality needed to resonate in the human condition. The Word acted in his relational involvement of love to prepare them (us), knowing that nothing but the new creation identity and function can constitute this musical witness that solely distinguishes “my witnesses” for the gospel of whole and uncommon peace.[5]

It is unequivocal, however, that this relational outcome unfolds only with the relational work of the Trinity, with the Spirit fulfilling the primary relational work from the Word (as in Jn 16:12-15). In fulfilling our half of this relational equation, what this reciprocal relationship together constitutes is incomparable in human life:

The disciples, past and present, demonstrate the credibility of their witness when the new song resonates in their identity and function to illuminate the new creation transforming persons and relationships, and reconciling them to be whole together as one family—the whole family that all of creation longs to have resonate in its entrenched condition of reductionism.

Yet, the new creation family resonates as one only when it also has consonance. This is the witness facing us together as the church.

“My witnesses” have the depth and quality essential to “my” and constituting of “me.” What is essential to “my” and who constitutes “me” are attributed to the Trinity—the whole of God not reduced to or fragmented by the identity and function of just any one of the Trinitarian persons. The new creation resonates in the primal sound by distinguishing the Trinity, but it must also, by the nature of the Trinity, have consonance to be in harmony and fidelity with the Trinity. The consonance, however, of witnesses as “my” with “me” cannot be fulfilled by individual witnesses (or even by their sum), because the identity and function of “my witnesses” only have consonance together as one, just as the Trinitarian persons are One together. The Trinity’s One is to be whole, whose function is synergistic—the synergism that the sum of all the individual parts do not add up to be whole. Therefore, the new creation family resonates synergistically in consonance with the Trinity; and thereby the credibility of witnesses is established when their singing of the new song has both this resonance and consonance in their identity and function together in synergism as the church family.

Our identity and function integrally in resonance and consonance with the Trinity can be summarized as follows:

What resonates with the Trinity is our heart, that is, our whole person from inner out. When our innermost is not reduced or fragmented—“a heart at peace,” in wholeness (Prov 14:30, NIV)—our heart “gives life to the body” (basar, the outer part of the person); thus, the heart serves as the integrating function for the whole person (inner and outer together). This integrating function is the basis for our heart resonating with the Trinity, since this is the essential likeness in wholeness of each of the Trinitarian persons. In addition, the resonance of the new creation of our persons incorporates our relationships in new relationship together in wholeness (the siym and shalom of God’s definitive blessing, Num 6:26), which the Word constituted as the Trinity’s synergistic family in consonance with the whole ontology and function of the Trinity as One.

The relational outcome of the new creation integrally resonates with consonance as the new creation church family, whose identity and function in synergism are distinguished by the qualitative image and relational likeness of the Trinity. This relational outcome unmistakably constitutes the church as family in the relational quality of the Trinity as One, and is therefore irreducible and nonnegotiable by the church to anything less and any substitutes.

There is an integrating process underlying for witnesses to be “my” with “me,” which is crucial to understand for our theology and practice to be significant in their essential dimension and quality. The resonance of our identity and function made new integrates whole theological anthropology with the Word’s full Christology and complete soteriology. But “my witnesses” don’t stop here so that they will be integrated in what constitutes “me.” This integration is the consonance of our identity and function synergistically together as one church family—the integral resonance and consonance integrating whole theological anthropology, full Christology and complete soteriology together with the whole ecclesiology, which completes the relational quality essential for whole theology and practice. The Word amplifies and is amplified in only this harmony and fidelity restoring the primal sound to the innermost of human life.

As the Word prepared his disciples to resonate as “my witnesses,” he constituted them only to “all be one…” (Jn 17:21). This constituting expression was composed beyond the limits of what traditionally has been considered the Son’s high priestly prayer, but more deeply expressed as his formative family prayer intimately shared with the Father (Jn 17). The integrity of his disciples being essential to “my” and constituting of “me” was at stake here. Accordingly, his family prayer constituted them in the only consonance that resonated the experiential truth and relational reality of his family: “that they may become completely one” (17:22-23). This Trinitarian prayer for the Trinity’s family is irreducible and nonnegotiable for the church as family. However, his prayer has a contingency (“may”) for its relational outcome, because relationship together with the Trinity is never unilateral but always reciprocal in the relational involvement of love—“so that the love with which you, Father, have loved me may be in them, and I in them” (v.26). The Trinity has fulfilled the defining half of the relational equation, so now the other half needs to be fulfilled by the church—“that we truly are one, just as the Trinity is One.”

Paul later amplified the Word’s prayer in order for the church family to resonate (Eph 1:16-23), so that the church has the consonance constituted in the relational involvement of love with “me” (Eph 3:14-19). The old Paul (Saul) gave his life to fragment the church, but the new Paul, who was transformed from inner out and reconciled by the Word person to person, gave his whole person for the consonance of the church in wholeness. “How fragmented is the Word? Thus, how can the Word’s church family be so fragmented?” was the substance of Paul’s confrontation of the church in order to be united together as one “just as the Trinitarian person are One” (1 Cor 1:10-13). This contingent relational outcome involved the integration process, first of theology then of practice. The new Paul’s confrontation of the church resonated with the integration of his restored whole theological anthropology with his newly established full Christology and recent complete soteriology, and then with the consonance of the whole ecclesiology essential for the experiential truth and relational reality of the new creation church family—integrated to be persons in synergistic relationship together of wholeness in the qualitative image and relational likeness of the Trinity. Although Paul never articulated the Trinity in referential terms and words, his relational language in harmony and fidelity with the Word distinguished the whole who, what and how constituting of and consonant with the Trinity and the Trinity’s family. In this integral relational process with the Word and the Spirit, it was Paul and not Peter who integrated—not in unilateral but reciprocal relationship together with the Word and the Spirit—the ecclesiology essential for the church to be whole: the whole ecclesiology made definitive by Paul (e.g. in Eph 2:19-22; 4:11-16; 1 Cor 12:4-6, 12-16).[6]

So, where are you, church? What are you doing today? Where are your church leaders in their identity and function? Are they consonant with the Trinity’s family, or are they promoting their own “brand” to compete with other fragments of the church, and thus counter the global church family as nothing less and no substitutes for the Trinity as One? What is your witness both in our condition as Christians and in the human condition? Does your witness resonate the primal sound innate to human persons, to thereby be consonant with the wholeness in the innermost that all persons, relationships and creation long for without anything less and any substitutes?

What “my witnesses” are facing with “me” is the integrated witness in harmony and fidelity with the Word amplified in whole theology and practice. That is to say, by the Word and not by words, we as the church family must distinguish the credibility of our witness together truly as family by the symphonic witness, which integrates our persons and relationships together synergistically as church into the complete harmony and full fidelity of the Word. Without the consonance of the symphonic witness, the integrity of any local church and the global church is simply fragmentary; the unavoidable consequence compromises its credibility for proclaiming the gospel of wholeness because it has yet to claim the whole gospel’s experiential truth and relational reality—a fragmented church no matter how much it appears to resonate (cf. church in Sardis, Rev 3:1-2).

Therefore, only the symphonic witness of the church as family will resonate with the consonance (1) “so that the world may know that you Father have sent me and have loved our family even as you have loved me,” and (2) “so that the world may believe that you have sent me also for their redemptive transformation and reconciliation into our family”—just as the Word prayed (Jn 17:21,23). Once again, the contingency (“may”) exists in this formative family prayer, waiting for the symphonic witness of the church as family to fulfill our half of the relational equation.

In our condition as Christians and the human condition, anything less and any substitutes are always competing to counter nothing less and no substitutes for the wholeness of the Trinity and our persons and relationships together as the Trinity’s family. Our theology and practice will not be significant until it is distinguished vulnerably and ongoingly in whole theology and practice just as the Word amplified integrally as essential for “my” and as constituting of “me.” What then distinguishes the symphonic witness of the church as family?

Just as the Trinitarian persons belong as One, all the persons in the Trinity’s church family belong because they have been redeemed and adopted (Eph 1:5-7; Gal 4:4-7; Rom 8:14-16). Belonging to the church as family involves more than being a mere member but being the true daughters and sons of God. However, as witnessed in biological families, just bearing the identity of sons and daughters doesn’t create harmony; perhaps dissonance is the norm in families (including the church) rather than consonance.

To compose the symphonic witness, the identity of persons in the church is rooted in their adoption to belong, not by bearing the identity of God’s child but by transforming their identity from inner out. This extends the integrating process from theology to practice in order to distinguish whole theology and practice. Integrating our practice addresses the contingency in the Word’s family prayer. To fulfill this contingency for the church, Paul fought for the wholeness of the gospel (Eph 6:15) that the Word constituted. Therefore, each person adopted into the Trinity’s church as family has to be reconciled with the whole theological anthropology that defines their identity and determines their function by the primary from inner out; this primacy makes all other identities and functions secondary, irrelevant or void. Thus, Paul makes definitive for all adoptees in the following paraphrase:

“You are no longer strangers and aliens, nor servants and even honored guests in God’s family” (Eph 2:19); furthermore, your identity in the Word’s family “is no longer Jew or Greek…no longer slave or free…no longer male and female; for all your persons from inner out are one identity” (Gal 3:28); moreover, “as persons transformed to the new creation in the image and likeness of the Trinity, there are no existing human distinctions that define your identity and determine your function—including roles and titles, as Peter learned” (paraphrase of Col 3:10-11); therefore, it is imperative that “the wholeness of the Word be the defining determinant for the innermost of your persons, who constitute the church family as one” (Col 3:15).

Because of the ongoing influence of reductionism and its counter-relational workings, Paul made imperative this integrating process for our theology and practice to be whole, to remain whole in everyday life, and to make whole the fragmentation in the human condition.

In this integrating process of church practice, all adoptees are equalized in their identity and function—that is, without the human distinctions (such as physical, mental, social, cultural, economic, and the like) making them different. These distinctions not only make them different, but because they inevitably engage a comparative process, they are labelled according to a hierarchy of “better or less.” Such distinctions used to compare one another emerge directly from a reduced theological anthropology that defines persons and determines their function by the outer in of what they do and have; the unavoidable consequences from comparative distinctions fall into mirroring the human condition to the extent beyond just reflecting it but reinforcing and even sustaining it, rather than transforming the human condition.

The symphonic witness of the church cannot have consonance without the equalized identity and function of its persons and relationships. This may seem like an idealized truth rather than an experiential truth, a virtual reality rather than a relational reality. To be equalized in function, however, does not mean that each adoptee has the same role in the family. Nevertheless, it is essential for the person’s identity not to be defined by that role or title—thus not labelled as ‘more’ or ‘less’—and that the function of each adoptee has the same qualitative relational position, value and belonging in the family, in order for the church to be one as the Trinitarian persons are One in their different roles (1 Cor 12:12-26). We cannot claim to be the new creation without this transformation of our identity and function, which becomes inseparable from the reconciliation of our persons into transformed and thus equalized relationships together as the Trinity’s church family.

The symphonic witness of the church integrates the above redemptive transformation with redemptive reconciliation both into the Trinity’s family and within all the persons and relationships of the church. As the redemptive change for new relationships together in wholeness unfolded from God’s definitive blessing (siym and shalom) and was fulfilled by the Word, the Trinity’s church family reconciles persons and relationships in equalized relationship together—nothing less, or the persons and relationships have not been transformed. Unequalized identities cannot be reconciled into the equalized relationships necessary to be one in the relational likeness of the Trinity. Unequalized identities function in their different distinctions of ‘more or less’ to directly counter—however subtly or even inadvertently, as Peter discovered at his footwashing—being reconciled from inner out in the qualitative image of the Trinity. This includes the identity distinctions of male and female maintained in the church (e.g. by complementarians), an existing condition which Paul exposes as dissonant for the integration of redemptive transformation and reconciliation. The gender issue is crucial to address because its effects prevail in all humanity and pervade our persons and relationships in the church. Salvation will never be complete without resolving the gender issue.[7]

Therefore, only transformed equalized persons reconciled in transformed equalized relationships together have the essential depth to compose the symphonic witness of the church as family in the qualitative image and relational likeness of the Trinity. Nothing less and no substitutes for the church and its persons and relationships have consonance together to be in complete harmony and full fidelity with the Word as “my witnesses,” and thereby, on this qualitative relational basis alone, resonate in the human condition.

The contingency (“may”), however, always looms overhead, ready to dampen our ideals and to fog our theology and practice. Any identity and function for the church and its persons and relationships that are not integrated by redemptive transformation and reconciliation become fragmented from their constituting wholeness (in relational distance from “me”), thereby rendering them to reductionism’s counter-relational workings in anything less and any substitutes. In order to counter this prevailing dissonance both in local churches and in the global church, only the integration of our theology and practice into wholeness (not fragments or their sum) brings the relational outcome for the church and all its persons and relationships to resonate in consonance with the symphonic witness distinguishing the church as the Trinity’s family. In this relational outcome, the contingency is removed by the experiential truth and relational reality of the church family as one, with the integral identity and function unmistakably in the qualitative image and relational likeness of the Trinity—therefore, witnessing symphonically in the innermost with the primal sound, solely by the gospel of wholeness, only with this gospel, and just for its good news indeed.

Living in the experiential truth and relational reality of this integrated relational outcome, churches and their persons and relationship can gather together as family at the Communion table to share together in their whole and uncommon (holy, for whole-ly) fellowship together, beyond a mere tradition or formality and merely as individuals—the qualitative relational significance of koinonia. In the new covenant communion fellowship (Lk 22:20; 2 Cor 3:6), persons from inner out are vulnerably involved in the reciprocal relationship of love because their veils have been removed to join them together intimately as one family. On this integral relational basis, then, they can celebrate being together as the whole and uncommon global church.

Now church and all its witnesses, in complete harmony and full fidelity with this experiential truth and relational reality, join vulnerably together in resonance with the song “Whole-ly Communion,” and then musically celebrate intimately together in consonance as “The Global Church Celebrating.” By the complete harmony and full fidelity of this integral relational response and relational involvement, the Word will know where we are and what we are doing here, without any other words from us.

Note: “uncommon” is the meaning of “holy” that distinguishes God in the Bible

[1] By Scott Stantis in “Prickly City,” Los Angeles Times, December 7, 2018.

[2] By Kary A. Kambara and T. Dave Matsuo, 2011. Music available online at www.4X12.org.

[3] This discussion of the theological academy is detailed in my study “Did God Really Say That?” Theology in the Age of Reductionism (Theology Study, 2013). Online at www.4X12.org.

[4] For an expanded discussion of the/our human condition, see my study Jesus’ Gospel of Essential Justice: The Human Order from Creation through Complete Salvation (Justice Study: 2018). Online at www.4X12.org.

[5] To further understand ‘whole and uncommon peace’, see my study on Jesus’ Gospel of Essential Justice.

[6] To understand how this unfolded, see two of my studies: The Whole of Paul and the Whole in His Theology: Theological Interpretation in Relational Epistemic Process (Paul Study, 2010), and Jesus into Paul: Embodying the Theology and Hermeneutic of the Whole Gospel (Integration Study, 2012). Online at http://www.4X12.org.

[7] To address this issue at the innermost, see Kary A. Kambara, The Gender Equation in Human Identity and Function: Examining Our Theology and Practice, and Their Essential Equation (Gender Study, 2018). Online at www.4X12.org.

[8] By Kary A. Kambara and T. Dave Matsuo, 2014. Music available online at www.4X12.org.

[9] By T. Dave Matsuo and Kary A. Kambara, 2018. Music available online at www.4X12.org.