Ch 2 Knowing Our Roots and Its Branches

In normal times, there would still be questions about the year ahead and having a basis for what to expect. Yet, in the new-normal times of today, these questions about 2021 are multiplied, with expectations amplified in uncertainty. Antecedent to these questions, including about the decade ahead, is the underlying roots of our way of life and its branches supporting our identity and function. Knowing our roots and its branches will help us answer these questions and find a basis for expectation—answers and expectations of significance in new-normal times.

It is normal for people to rationalize their roots. It is also common for people to politicize their heritage; and all the branches of these roots render the 2020s in uncertainty and biased expectations with a false sense of certainty. These roots and its branches, however, are not the antecedents for God’s people. Nationalized roots is abnormal and politicized heritage is not the unique distinction for the identity and function that integrally distinguish God’s people and their way of life. Thus, all Christians and churches need to examine the roots and branches of their current way of life, in order to know (1) how congruent their roots are and (2) how compatible their branches are to the defining roots and determining branches of God’s whole-ly people. Without the certainty of these roots and branches, there is only uncertainty to expect in our way of life.

The human order has evolved through human history and has certainly devolved in historic moments. If we search for our roots in this evolutionary process, we have to include these historic moments. Christians, for the most part, would use creation as the starting point for the human order. Yet, how well this starting point serves as the root of how they currently enact the human order, as well as forms the branches of their identity and function in everyday life, is an underlying issue. What we subscribe to in our theology does not ensure that it also becomes our practice. Intervening variables always disrupt the direct correlation between theology and practice. Thus, in order to know our

roots and its branches, Christians need to examine what has evolved in the human order since creation, and then see if any evolved and devolved roots have supplanted the roots of creation.

When we have some understanding of this, we will better know if current branches in our way of life correlate to creation or to its evolution. To make these connections correlative and not on mere assumption, we need to understand who and what were created and how they have evolved. This may require keeping an open theological mind and setting aside biases from our practice, whereby we will wait upon the Word to enhance our understanding of these roots and branches.

It seems obvious that this examination should start from the beginning. What’s not obvious is when the beginning emerged. What appears to be the origin of the human species may not be the beginning of the human race. To clarify and correct theological thinking on this vital matter, we need (1) to distinguish creation from evolution, and then (2) to make distinct the process of evolution both in and on creation. The latter is often overlooked in the prevailing theological mindset and cannot be separated from the former. This is indispensable for knowing our roots and its branches, as well as being able to understand the existing roots and branches of our current way of life and its human order.

Most Christians seem to believe in creation and not in evolution. Yet, the creation narrative (Gen 1-2) is incomplete in its details, so this is an insufficient basis to define our science. That is, in what has been revealed unequivocally about God’s creation, there are unknown aspects that leave room for evolution to fill in, either unequivocally or equivocally. For example, DNA of the human species can be traced back to Neanderthals and apes. However, though this evolution of Homo sapiens may account for their physical development, this quantitative account does not form the qualitative development of the human person. Quantified terms are insufficient to explain the human person, much less understand the person unique to all life.

In the beginning, the emergence of the physical make-up of Homo sapiens appears to have evolved from the earliest cell life. Yet, biological science cannot assume that cell life appeared ex nihilo (out of nothing), or perhaps claim these cells were planted by extraterrestrial life alien to the earth. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth…and life therein,” wherein God must have allowed room for evolution to unfold in certain areas of life. One key area of life, however, was not rooted in evolution and cannot be explained on its quantitative basis. This is the life of the human person, whose qualitative constitution unequivocally distinguishes the person from the quantitative make-up equivocal to Homo sapiens and related species. In other words, as an unequivocal believer in God’s creation, I affirm the following: At some unknown point in the fragmentary evolutionary development of the physical human body, God interjected to create the whole human person from inner out, incomparably in God’s qualitative image and relational likeness, which constituted the human person qualitatively above and beyond what neuroscience has discovered about mysteries of the human brain.[1]

The human person is not rooted in evolution, since that person could only be fragmented in quantitative terms and thus never be whole. Evolutionists conjecture that the human person emerged along the evolutionary continuum; but bridging the immeasurable gap between the human body and the human person is purely an assumption having no factual supportive basis beyond evolutionary bias (read also as “faith”)—a bias or faith evolving from the narrow limits of its quantitative epistemic field. Contrary to this mindset, the reality of who and what emerged only has significance as the whole person created only by God; and the created person’s roots and branches are incomparably distinguished in their created wholeness in unequivocal contrast to their evolutionary fragmentation, which at best can only quantify the brain to make the human person distinct from other species. This is the beginning that must be known in order to understand our deepest roots and fundamental branches. This knowledge and understanding then helps us to know our current roots and branches, which then crucially helps us also to understand if and how they may have evolved.

Within the cosmological parameters of creation, God created the human person as the centerpiece. In order to understand the roots of this unique person, we have to know not only who God created but also what God created. These roots are central to theological anthropology,[2] which is essential for the branches formed in political theology. So, if our theological anthropology is rooted in creation, then our political theology will have compatible branches in our way of life. However, this is an equivocal “if” that may include who in theological anthropology while excluding or overlooking what God created. The who God created is insufficient to account for the what God created to complete the whole person. Moreover, even if our theological anthropology includes the who and the what, this is often not the person integrated in our everyday way of life, and thus not the identity and function of the whole person created by God. This is consequential for the roots of the human person in the beginning, as we will discuss below.

The human person’s beginning was created in God’s image and likeness (Gen 1:26-27; 5:1-2). God’s image becomes ambiguous in human perception when considered in quantitative terms (Isa 40:18; Acts 17:28-29). Here again, evolutionary roots cannot be confused for creation roots. God’s image is rooted in God’s ontology, whose being is constituted qualitatively (“God is spirit,” Jn 4:24)—although God’s qualitative function includes quantitative acts but cannot be reduced to those secondary limits. The what of the human person, therefore, is created in the qualitative image of God, first and foremost, which is rooted in the heart of the person distinguished from inner out at the innermost. Thus, as constituted according to God’s qualitative ontology and function, any quantitative terms describes the person just from outer in, using distinctions that are always secondary to the person’s primary identity and function rooted in God’s qualitative image—distinguished only in the innermost.

On the essential basis of God’s qualitative image, the human person emerged in the beginning as the centerpiece of God’s creation when in ongoing function by the heart. The function of the qualitative heart is critical for the whole person and holding together the person in the innermost. The biblical proverbs speak of the heart in the following terms:

identified as “the wellspring” (starting point, tosa’ot) of the ongoing function of the human person (Prov 4:23); using the analogy to a mirror, the heart also functions as what gives definition to the person (Prov 27:19); and, when not reduced or fragmented (“at peace,” i.e. wholeness), as giving life to “the body” (basar, referring to the outer aspect of the person, Prov 14:30, NIV), which describes the heart’s integrating function for the whole person (inner and outer together).

Without the function of the heart, the whole person from inner out created by God is reduced to function from outer in, distant or separated from the heart. In other words, the qualitative heart is the foundational root for the human person in the qualitative image of God. On this qualitative basis alone the human person emerged as the highlight of God’s creation.

Yet, this focal point of creation appeared to be incomplete. The who was certainly there, but the what seemed still to be missing something. When God said “It is not good that the person should be alone” (Gen 2:18), did the Creator forget that something and thus created another person to be his partner? It is commonly thought that two initial responses are what clarify and correct what God unfolds in creation. First, the other person was of female gender, the who of whom appears to be an add-on to help the male person and keep him company—notably as “a helper to be his partner” is commonly interpreted, thus making her subordinate in the human order of creation. Second, the what of each person appears to be highlighted as partners in marriage to form the pinnacle of creation, while still in the same human order. Both of these responses are prominent for composing Christian thinking and way of life. But they both in reality reduce the who and the what of God’s created persons, as well as compromise the integrity of their persons in the image and likeness of God. Thus, it is critical to understand our responses to creation in order to make the distinction necessary to know the person’s basic roots of who and what God created.

Gender is the key quantitative characteristic that has defined the person’s identity and determined their function. Marriage has remained as the ultimate relationship ordained by God. Neither of these, however, accounts for the who and what God created as whole persons, nor speaks for the words that God said above. This is not to say that in the creation narrative both gender and marriage are “not good”; rather it corrects how we see what is “not good” and attribute as good on the basis of creation. Once again, this is a crucial difference to understand, in order to know what is vital for that roots and branches in our way of life as both the person and persons together created by God.

God created the who and the what of the human person to be clearly distinguished in creation (Ps 139:13-14). To be distinguished (pala)[3] signifies to separate, to be wonderful, that is to say, to distinguish beyond what exists in the human context and thus cannot be defined by its comparative terms, or the person is no longer distinguished (as Job learned, Job 42:3). Therefore, the unique who and what of the person and persons together are distinguished only when in the image and likeness of God.

In the qualitative function of the heart, the whole person from inner out has the unique opportunity of creation not merely “to be alone” but most important “not to be apart.” When the Creator declared this pivotal statement about the human person (just from inner out), the creation dynamic unfolds to integrate the image and the likeness of God—that is, the integral qualitative image and the integral relational likeness constituted solely by and thus of the Trinity, the whole of God. This pivotal point of creation constitutes the person with other human persons in unparalled relationships together. Yet, what is “not good” has to be understood in order to distinguish the good of creation.

“Good” (tob) can be situational, a moral condition, about happiness or being righteous; compare how good is perceived from human observation (Gen 3:6). When attached to “to be alone,” “not good” can easily be interpreted with all of the above, perhaps with difficulty about being righteous. Yet, in this creation context the Creator constituted the foundational human order, whose design, meaning and purpose are both definitive and conclusive for the narrative of human being and being human. Though the creation narrative is usually rendered “to be alone,” the Hebrew term (bad) can also be rendered “to be apart.” The latter interpretation composes a deeper sense of relationship and not being connected to someone else, that is, not merely an individual having someone to associate with. This nuance is significant to pay attention to because it takes the human narrative beyond situations and deeper than the heterosexual relations of marriage. “To be apart” is not just a situational condition but most definitively a relational condition distinguished only by the primacy of the created human order. In the human narrative, a person may be alone in a situation but indeed also feel lonely (pointing to the inner out) in the company of others, at church, even in a family or marriage because of relational distance, that is, “being apart,” which the Creator defines as “not good.”

In the design, meaning and purpose of the created human order, the human narrative is composed conjointly (1) for human being “to be part” of the interrelated structural condition and contextual process with the Creator, and (2) for the function of being human “to be part” of the relationship together necessary to be whole as constituted by and thus in the whole ontology and function of their Creator. “Good” (tob), then, in the creation context is only about being righteous (not about a moral condition but the function of an ontological condition); that is, good signifies the Creator’s whole ontology and function constituting the righteousness of God (the whole of who, what and how God is). In whole terms (not reduced), only creator God is good—the difficult lesson Jesus illuminated for the rich young ruler about the primacy distinguishing human being and being human as his followers (Mk 10:18). And human beings are constituted in this “good,” in whole ontology and function in likeness of the righteous whole of who, what and how God is. Nothing less and no substitutes can constitute human beings as good, and any diminishment can only be “not good.” Therefore, anything less and any substitute is “to be apart” from this distinguished whole, rendering human being reduced and being human fragmentary.

The heart’s significance only begins to define the image of God, yet the heart’s function identifies why the heart is so vital to the person integrally in the image and likeness of God. God’s creative action, design and purpose emerge only in relational language, the qualitative-relational terms of which are not for unilateral relationship but reciprocal relationship together. Therefore, God’s desires are to be vulnerably involved with the whole person in the primacy of relationship—intimate relationship together defined only as hearts opening to each other and bonding. Since the function of the heart integrally constitutes the whole person, God does not have the whole person for relationship until it involves the heart (Dt 10:14-16; Ps 95:7-11; Jn 4:24).

This may bring up a question that would be helpful to address. If God constituted the physical body with the qualitative inner to distinguish the human person from all other animals, how does relatedness further distinguish human persons since most animal life subsists in relatedness also? Not only does the qualitative distinguish the human person from inner out with the quantitative according to the image of God, but at this intersection of God’s creative action relationship was now also constituted as never before (as in “not good to be apart”)—inseparably integrated with the qualitative—to fully distinguish the human person integrally as whole according to both the qualitative image of God and the relational likeness of the whole of God (namely the Trinity’s relational ontology and function). The primordial garden illuminates the integral dynamic of the qualitative and relational in its wholeness as well as its reduction into fragmentary parts—the convergence of the physical, psychological, the relational, the social and the cultural, which together go into defining and determining both the human person and subsequent human condition. Paying attention to only one (or some) of the above gives us a fragmentary or incomplete understanding of what it is to be human. The creation narrative provides us with not a detailed (much less scientific) account of the human person but the integrated perspective (framework and lens) necessary to define and determine the whole person, as well as the evolving reductionism of the human condition that emerged soon after. Therefore, these contexts, expanding parameters, limits and constraints are critical for theological anthropology to distinguish the what and the who of the created person from who and what evolved. The latter may not have a clear distinction from other animal life, but the former cannot be equated with them when distinguished.

In our way of life, “not good to be alone” can be addressed in various ways of association, with measures of variable social distance and relational distance. These measures are certainly being tested as loneliness accelerates in the COVID-19 pandemic, with students suffering increasing emotional distress from suspended in-person learning. While removing social distance can help in loneliness, it cannot satisfy the underlying need of this condition. Persons can and do experience feeling alone often in the midst of any kind of social gathering; even students occupying in-person classrooms often feel disconnected from teachers and other students right next to them. This points to the roots used for the person and the normative branches found in everyday way of life. For example, interrelated to a person’s qualitative function (in terms of feelings, as noted above) is a social function (about relationships) that appears also to be integral to the human brain. In conjoint function with the qualitative (as noted by Damasio), there is this relational dimension that emerges for neuroscience to explain what it means to be human.[4] Despite the limits built into this science-based explanation, these qualitative and relational aspects observed by neuroscience help draw attention, if not point us, to the deeper roots of the who and what that are primary to the human person(s).

God created the human person in the qualitative image “not to be apart,” the whole of which is integrally complete only when in God’s relational likeness. Inseparable from the person’s qualitative function is the primacy of the person’s relational function in likeness of the whole (not merely some part) of God, whose wholeness constitutes the Trinity in relationship together as One—just as the Word later made definitive to constitute his family (Jn 17:20-26). Therefore, the human person was created “not to be apart” from God’s wholeness, who constitutes the whole human person in the irreducible and nonnegotiable primacy of relationships with other whole human persons (not based on gender) for their wholeness together (not based in marriage) in relational likeness of the Trinity.

“Not to be apart” from the integral qualitative and relational wholeness of the Trinity is immeasurable for the roots of who and what the human person is, and thus is irreplaceable for the branches of the human order developed in the public life of all persons created by God. “All persons created by God” is a declaration found in human history, notably in U.S. history, which has been used more as a notion than an axiom. Since the incomparable beginning of creation, who and what God distinguished have evolved in the not good condition “to be apart.” This condition also emerged from the beginning as it evolved in the primordial garden after creation. We need to know these evolved roots just as much as the created roots, in order to understand what happened to the who and what of the human person, as well as how persons evolved and where we have evolved to.

The issue of human progress has not lacked controversy. What has been most contentious rightly questions, challenges and confronts what is considered progress. This needs to be a basic issue in political theology that directly involves the public way of life of any person and all peoples. To know our roots we have to understand how they evolved in the framework of human progress, whose subtle workings have altered the growth of human life with dubious branches.

The issue of human progress emerged in the beginning with human persons and evolved from their public engagement in the primordial garden. After the historic creation of the human person, what unravels in the primordial garden is history (Gen 3:1-10). Some consider this narrative as allegory rather than historical; yet, either account simply elucidates the reality that has entrenched human life at its core. This reality must

be neither oversimplified nor minimized, in order to understand both how this reality evolved and how political theology needs to address it in the everyday way of life of all persons, peoples, tribes and nations.

First, what is this reality and how did it evolve from the beginning? In this discussion, you will be able to learn if you’ve oversimplified or minimized this reality in your way of life.

The initial persons stepped forward in the primordial garden according to the created way of life constituted in wholeness, which was demonstrated in how they each defined their person from inner out and functioned in relationship together on this primary basis (Gen 2:25). Along the way created by God, they were then encouraged to make human progress by taking a byway. Encouragement to progress sounds good, but this so-called good is the subtle workings of the source of this encouragement. The source of this reality is usually oversimplified in Christian theology and often minimized in Christian practice. That’s why political theology must ongoingly account consciously for the ongoing presence of Satan and his ongoing involvement in subtle counter-workings against God’s wholeness. His subtlety emerges notably by cultivating human desires for progress with attractive byways that in reality fragment wholeness.

The counter-measures of Satan revolve around the condition “to be apart,” which counters (1) how the whole person is defined from inner out and (2) how persons together are determined by the primacy of their integral qualitative-relational function. This person and their relationships together (both with God and with each other) start to evolve when Satan raises a seemingly innocent question: “Did God say to you…?” (Gen 3:1). What appears as an innocent request for information must always be understood in Satan’s counter-relational workings. At the most basic level of relationship, Satan addresses the communication taking place from God and seeks to confuse the relationship with God with alternate interpretations that misinform the recipient of the original message (3:4-5). Alternative interpretations of God’s messages should not be oversimplified, nor should resulting misinformation be minimized, because they both have relational consequences in the quality of life together created by God. Satan’s purpose, of course, always works to counter God by reducing the quality and fragmenting that wholeness—again, by the quantity of human progress available on the byways that enhance human identity and function.

After Satan’s alternate interpretation of God’s message, the human persons embraced that misinformation to pursue their human progress with the expectation that their identity and function would be enhanced—perhaps beyond what their persons ever dreamed. The human brain is also at work here and being rewired accordingly—for example, to recondition the perceptual lens and its priorities—to supplant the primacy of the whole person’s heart in qualitative-relational function. What’s happening in Eve’s brain when she “saw that the tree was good for progress and that it was a delight to the eyes” (Gen 3:6)? And how has her thinking superseded her heart when “the tree was to be desired to make one wise”—all likewise affirmed by Adam? Moreover, what made them think that their identity and function would progress to the presumed level that “your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil,” disinformation contrary to the relational communication of God’s message in clear relational terms composed for their wholeness?

Their brains were certainly rewired to reduce their perceptual lens from the depths of inner out to the narrow limits and constraints of outer in: “Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked” (3:7). Contrary to and in conflict with their whole persons without shame from inner out (Gen 2:25), the so-called progress they expected reduced their identity and function to the fragmented human condition resulting from sin as reductionism.

Sin from the beginning must not be oversimplified or minimized merely to disobedience of God’s message. When sin is limited as such, then the reality that has evolved from the beginning is not understood much less addressed. Without knowing the roots of sin, the subtle counter-workings of Satan are not adequately perceived by the lens used by our brains. That, of course, allows branches of reductionism to evolve and devolve in human life, which take root in our everyday identity and function to prevail (subtly or not) in our public way of life. Certainly then, the lack of knowing and understanding these roots and branches encompassing sin as reductionism makes us susceptible in our persons and relationships to inescapably reflect, unavoidably reinforce, and inevitably sustain the fragmentary human relational condition. In this pervading and prevailing process, our human condition becomes reduced of its integral qualitative-relational function in wholeness created in the image and likeness of the Trinity.

From the beginning, God asks the human person “Where are you?” (Gen 3:9), in order for persons to face up to the evolution of their created identity and function in the sin of reductionism. We can either react to God and hide behind masks shielding the person from inner out (as demonstrated by the initial persons, 3:8-13); or we can remove our veils and respond to God to be transformed to wholeness in God’s likeness (as in 2 Cor 3:16-18). Yet, to be vulnerable to account for how we have evolved (personally and collectively) requires the willingness to take responsibility for any and all evolved roots and branches that are contrary to and in conflict with our created roots and branches. To answer “Where are you?” therefore, will encompass much further understanding to know where we really are. And underlying all of this throughout our theology and practice is the view of sin that we have, and thus use in our way of life. Nothing less and no substitutes for sin as reductionism emerged from the beginning. Nevertheless, anything less and any substitutes for this fundamental root have weakened this view of sin, and thus have rendered many branches with the appearance of “good and not evil” when in reality they are rooted in reductionism.

The view of sin that political theology brings to our way of life must have its roots from the beginning (1) in order to account for the breadth and depth of sin as reductionism that entrenches the human condition, (2) so that responsibility will be taken by us to redeem this evolving condition for its transformation in our way of life. Political theology of anything less and any substitutes has itself evolved, making it insignificant for the human condition, and thus useful only for human progress. For political theology to be of significance, it not only has to encompass sin as reductionism, but it also must understand the primary adversary in life as Satan and (3) thereby fight against and neutralize Satan’s influence, (4) in order to change and make whole his counter-relational workings of reductionism in persons, relationships, and their human order in everyday life, (5) for nothing less than the qualitative-relational outcome to transform what’s evolved into the new creation.

As the author of reductionism, Satan’s only purpose and goal is both to reduce the whole of God (Father, Son, Spirit in the primacy of whole relationship together)—for example, as the Son experienced progressively in Satan’s temptations (Lk 4:1-13)—and fragment God’s created wholeness. Therefore, “Where are you?” exposes the root of the condition and gets to the heart of what’s evolved.

Indeed, when God asks “Where are you?” it brings to the forefront the person’s created nature of who and what. It also points to the critical juncture when the created who and what make an evolutionary shift in the person and their relationship together. Human being and being human necessitate the created nature of being. To be or not to be, therefore, is the ongoing tension experienced by all persons in all relationships, the conflict of which emerged from the beginning to shift how the who and what of all of us would evolve from our created nature.

The condition of “not good to be apart—from wholeness” that constituted human persons’ created being was either set aside or ignored in the subtle process desiring human progress. This pivotal shift required fundamental changes in the who and what that defined human identity and determined human function. Satan’s encouragement of human persons to progress engaged them in a subtle alternate process contrary to creation. God constituted human persons in their innermost—deeper than the brain to illuminate the heart—to be distinguished whole totally from inner out. When the process of inner out defines human identity and determines human function, their who and what unfold in their created qualitative image and relational likeness, invested by God for human persons to be vested with God’s whole ontology and function.

To engage the alternate process for their human progress, their persons had to shift from inner out—which reduced their qualitative-relational nature—in order for their identity and function to become quantified by the outer in. The pivoting shift to outer in based on quantitative terms made it easier for their persons to progress on the quantified basis of what they were able to do as well as the abilities and resources they had. The more persons could quantify, the more they would progress. And these outer-in distinctions defined their identity and determined their function in this evolutionary shift contrary to creation.

From the beginning, Satan appealed to the level of knowledge for these persons, so that they could progress to “be like God, knowing good and evil.” If persons could advance to heights measured on this outer-in basis, why wouldn’t this be appealing to most any person? Whether it’s about knowledge or the ability to do more, who wouldn’t want to have the distinction of more and thereby be considered advanced in what they have and better in what they do? The subtlety of this shift is the genius of Satan, who generates sin as reductionism far beyond sin’s oversimplified or minimized perception merely as disobedience. Not surprisingly then, the shift to outer in has become normative for human identity and function. Moreover, this has evolved into quantified levels exceeding human expectations, such as devolving in the expansion of globalization[5] and perhaps evolving beyond imagination of the human brain, which artificial intelligence (AI) demonstrates in human progress today[6]; all this has progressed for the presumed development for human identity and function. Examine the progress humanity has made since the Industrial Revolution; then explain the evolvement of human desires into insatiable appetites to possess more in order for their identity and function to be considered as more, notably by others (not including God) in comparison with others (likely including God). The genius of Satan is active and productive today in advancing the virtual and artificial!

Meanwhile, our theological anthropology and view of sin are challenged to the level of being confronted unavoidably. Given the normative system structuring human life to compose an evolving new normal, the repercussions from this evolutionary shift are often overlooked or ignored because they are not understood. Yet, what’s evolved from the beginning has crucial qualitative-relational consequences, which reverberate in human persons, their relationships, their human order, and throughout humanity to shape and dominate them, whereby they prevail over the human way of life both public and private. These consequences are inescapable for any and all Christians and churches.

Examine more specifically, for example, how the appetite for more among Christians underlies the popularity of the prosperity gospel (in all variants), and how this appetite is the basis for the consumer church. Satan would not oppose this development among Christians and churches but encourage it, since it counters God’s wholeness.

When the reality of what evolved from the beginning is oversimplified or minimized, this reality spreads like a virus infection and reaches pandemic proportions to become endemic in the human condition. The created human condition was infected by reductionism, and this reality has evolved to reconstitute the human condition for all persons and their relationships. The repercussions on our human condition have been and continue to be evolving, which challenges us not to oversimplify while confronting us not to minimize—or else incur the consequences in our human condition as Christians and churches.

The dynamics of reductionism initiated by Satan in the primordial garden converge with, if not are duplicated in, the dynamics of biological evolution. This convergence indicates how Satan counters God’s creation with what seems to be natural for the human way of life. The roots of these dynamics and their evolving branches all appear to be advancing human progress. This requires closer examination. The basic dynamic in biological evolution is ‘natural selection’, otherwise known as “survival of the fittest.” This basic dynamic has evolved into the forceful dynamic generating the mutations of social Darwinism throughout humanity, notably mutating the human order of creation. What characterizes this basic dynamic in the human species is a self-centered process engaged almost entirely for survival, which prevails for those who are the “fittest.” Biologist Richard Dawkins rightly describes those good at surviving as possessing and thereby propagating the selfish gene that is needed to survive successfully.[7]

With the evolutionary shift to outer in, the dynamic of reductionism increasingly causes human persons to be conscious of their outer self—duplicating the self-centered process for survival. “Then the eyes of both focused on the outer, and they knew that they were naked” (Gen 3:7). What evolved is the reduction of the inner-out person to the outer-in self revolving in the prominence of self-consciousness: the self-focused survival of self’s identity and function by the dominance of a self-centered process.

Human persons were created naked in the beginning, which didn’t reduce them from their whole persons from inner out rooted in the qualitative. The identity and function of created persons emerged in the inner-out process of person-consciousness: the ongoing involvement of the person’s identity and function by their essence in the qualitative image and relational likeness of their Creator. In person-consciousness, “the man and the woman were both naked, and were not ashamed” (Gen 2:25). For this male and female to be naked and without shame involved a composition of the human narrative beyond the fragmenting terms of the body and marital sex between husband and wife. The Hebrew term for shame (bosh) involves confusion, disappointment, embarrassment or even dismay when things do not turn out as expected. What did they expect and what was their experience?

Think about this male and female meeting on these terms for the first time and examining each other from the outer in. Obviously, our lens for beauty, femininity as well as masculinity shaped by culture would occupy our thoughts; likewise, the competitive and survival needs from evolution could have shaped their lens. On what basis would there be no shame, confusion, disappointment, embarrassment or dismay? If what they saw of themselves from outer in were all there was and all they would get, it would not be difficult to imagine such feelings emerging.

In deeper yet interrelated function, however, the lens of this male and female was not constrained to the outer in, and thus was not even limited to gender. The depth of their connection emerged from the deep consciousness of human being from the inner out, the innermost of which can neither be adequately explained in physical terms nor even be sufficiently distinguished on the spiritual level (e.g. fragmenting the soul from the body). What we need to pay close attention to is the emergence of this essential human consciousness to compose the integral narrative for the integrated whole of human being and being human. Most notably, the process of person-consciousness emerged to present the whole of human being without any masks or barriers (e.g. even the distinction of gender) in order to be involved with each other at the depth level necessary to distinguish their being human. In other words, the context of person-consciousness composes the human narrative in ‘naked and without shame’—the whole ontology and function necessary to distinguish the human person.

What evolved at this pivotal juncture cannot be oversimplified or minimized. These whole persons were indeed naked, but not simply without any outer clothes as the Hebrew term (‘arom) denotes. A quantitative lens (e.g. of a physicalist-materialist) pays attention to human being from outer-in and likely limits this male and female coming together in natural sex without shame. What such a lens (including some non-materialists and dualists) overlooks or even ignores is human being from inner out and the presence, for example, of human masks worn both to shield the whole of human being and to prevent being human from the depth level of connection necessary to distinguish their wholeness in relationship together. The innermost of human being is indispensable and irreplaceable to distinguish the person and persons together whole-ly from inner out. Evolutionary changes, however, have repercussions that incur qualitative-relational consequences.

In the shift to outer in, the qualitative constituting created human life is reduced and diminished in priority to redefine what the quality of life signifies. Not only does the quantitative prevail over the qualitative, however, in this self-centered process of self-consciousness; equally important, relationships also shift on this basis. As these persons shifted away from the qualitative to progress in the quantitative, consider the repercussions evolving in their relationships. First, in their relationship with God they “hid their persons from the presence of God” (Gen 3:8). When God asked “Where are you?” God certainly didn’t want to know their location but the condition of their persons. It became obvious that their self-consciousness was heightened, so they took self-centered action to survive in God’s presence. That required submerging their whole inner out persons and then presenting an outer-in self in the survival mode of having relational distance in the connections and associations of their way of life. This self-conscious relational distance is maintained in order for relationships to advance according to the terms defined by the self. These often subtle terms were presumed by these persons to be applicable to relationship with God—a common assumption in the shift to outer in. The subtlety of shifting to self for defining the relationship in contrary terms, whether intentional or inadvertent, always reduces and renegotiates God’s irreducible and nonnegotiable terms for relationship together. This sin of reductionism is oversimplified when perceived simply as disobedience, which also minimizes the relational consequences generated by the evolution of who and what in subtle variants.

More obvious, secondly, this self-oriented relational distance was engaged in their human relationship; and their self-conscious workings reduced the depth of relational involvement to void their intimacy in relationship together. Though they certainly had sex together, this outer-in engagement must not be confused with the inner-out relational involvement of intimacy—as the confused quantified terms of intimacy have pervasively evolved in human interaction. Any relationship revolving on the self-consciousness of outer in effectively prevents intimacy, defined as hearts open to each other and involved vulnerably in relationship together. Intimacy is prevented when the self has to be its presumed fittest to survive in the relationship.

The evolutionary repercussions of these qualitative-relational consequences have mutated in the cyber world today. Self-conscious identity has amplified in illusions of fitness, the virtual reality of which has propagated self-centered relationships that only simulate relational connections at best. In other words, social media has evolved into the primary means for defining human identity and determining human function; and the qualitative-relational consequences have enveloped human life as never before—all under the seductive assumption of human progress. And make no mistake, regardless of where we are in the stages of human progress, self-consciousness is the default mode for all persons and their relationships. All this evolvement makes evident the reality that self-consciousness has mutated into the collective consciousness infecting all of humanity.

More than considering how relationships have evolved, we have to examine “Where are you?” in our identity and function, and then confront what has evolved. This is critical and urgent, because (1) the infection of reductionism is pandemic in our human condition and (2) its branches have mutated in the evolutionary shift from the beginning to make endemic their qualitative-relational consequences in our everyday way of life. Like the COVID-19 pandemic, this reality cannot be dismissed with misinformation, nor can it be overcome with limited measures. If we oversimplify and minimize these roots and branches, we will ongoingly reflect, reinforce, and sustain our human relational condition in the quantitative limits and constraints embedded in reductionism—just as Satan falsely encouraged and subtly seduced human persons from the beginning. When misled and misguided, all persons are reduced and their relationships fragmented from their created wholeness; accordingly, their way of life, the human order and the quality of life for all humanity labor in the qualitative-relational consequences from evolving and mutating repercussions of reductionism prevailing today. Therefore, included in the critical need for sin not be oversimplified and minimized, its counter-relational workings of reductionism must never be underestimated. The genius of Satan always manipulates naiveté in our theology and practice.

“Where are you today?” Does the Word’s feedback describe where? “My people have reduced me, they focus on the outer in; they have stumbled in their ways, in the created way, and have progressed into bypaths, not my whole-ly way” (Jer 18:15).

The byways persons and relationships turn to from God’s created way of life need to be explicitly addressed in political theology. To address this endemic condition, political theology must have significant understanding of these byways and the roots that systemically and structurally compose the human order for humanity’s way of life. This understanding takes persons and relationships beyond the primordial garden, yet never separated from the formative roots evolved from the beginning. Anything less and any substitutes in political theology render it insignificant to define our identity and determine our function in our way of life.

At this point, reconsider Satan’s progressive pursuit of the Son to reduce his ontology and function, and how the Son countered Satan’s subtle temptations with nothing less and no substitutes of his whole ontology and function (as noted above in Lk 4:1-10). What would have happened to the integrity of the Trinity and the wholeness of the trinitarian persons’ relationship together as One, if the Son had not responded with nothing less and no substitutes of the who and the what of the Trinity? And honestly examine if your heart would be satisfied as a person (like “naked and without shame”) in the compromised image and likeness of anything less and any substitutes. This is the crossroads facing us today.

The who and the what of the created person have evolved into stereotypes converging in the composition of self-ism that underlies human life. Self-ism has infected all aspects of humanity and propagated the systems and structures of the human order on the basis of quantitative distinctions. These outer-in distinctions have stereotyped who and what human persons are and how they can function. The evolved quantitative distinctions of self-ism have become basic for defining human identity and determining human function, such that human persons are now limited to and constrained in the particular stereotype depicting their self.

When the self displaced the person, fragmentary outer-in distinctions assumed the prominence and priority over the inner out distinguishing the whole person. Rooted in the outer in, the self is composed by what it does and has (including its abilities, resources, roles and titles). The self revolves on these distinctions of what it does and has, which then renders each self to those stereotypes. Self-ism emerges when these stereotypes are formalized to establish the human order. Stereotypes are formalized in a comparative process, in which the self competes with other selfs to be the “fittest,” thereby forming a vertical scale for measuring the self as better or less, good or bad, etc. Outer-in distinctions are always measured on this inevitable comparative basis, which forms the underlying system and structure of self-ism. How has self-ism evolved into the present?

Racism, classism, sexism, and any other isms depicting stereotyped distinctions in humanity are all subsumed under self-ism. Moreover, these isms will all continue to be sustained as long as self-ism prevails in the public and private way of life; and this human condition has become endemic.

The reality of self-ism in everyday life parallels the current reality of the COVID-19 pandemic. Many today minimize the infection threat of the novel coronavirus, while some even deny its reality and call it a hoax or a conspiracy to control human freedom and the quality of life—all consequential for accelerating this pandemic’s infection globally and increasing spread locally. The same can, should and must be said about self-ism, whose infection symptoms are ongoingly explicit in undeniable outer-in distinctions. Yet, the convergence of these two realities is no coincidence. The genius of Satan is using the COVID-19 reality to diminish the perception of self-ism’s reality, so that its reductionism infection will continue to evolve and mutate in our way of life, our human order, and the basis for governing life together.

A major difference in these converging realities is that the infection of self-ism is set apart from the coronavirus infection. That is, in the COVID-19 pandemic, quarantine efforts help stop the infection, whereas isolation of any kind neither prevents the self-ism pandemic nor reduces its infection in human life. Once the evolutionary shift to outer in established the self in stereotyped distinctions, these distinctions are embedded deeply as the defining determinant for human identity and function wherever this self exists, publicly or privately, collectively or individually.

The self in reduced identity and function persists in the stereotype of what it does and has. When systematically measured by this comparative basis, the self has little freedom and opportunity to significantly change its status on the human scale, though efforts beyond survival to become the fittest may be an ongoing hope—an uncertainty, for example, demonstrated in the presumed hope of the American Dream. In other words, what any self can do and have has limits, to which the self is constrained as long as based on outer in. The most predominant consequence of this pandemic infection is the endemic condition of human inequality. Contrary to and in conflict with the human equality of all persons created in the qualitative image and relational likeness of the whole of God, human inequality evolved from the beginning and has mutated to become the norm for the human order, as well as the variable new normal for the human way of life.

Human inequality is the standard-bearer for self-ism that relegates all persons, peoples, tribes and nations to its stereotypes. These outer-in distinctions have become nearly indelible in the human order, and they have become the justification for human inequity in this self-centered way of life. Human inequality can only emerge from the evolutionary shift to outer in, and human inequity has no basis without the prominence of outer-in distinctions. Without understanding these roots, human life keeps evolving and mutating in the branches of human inequality and inequity. Will we recognize that this has become the endemic condition of our way of life, or will we focus only on the COVID-19 pandemic to determine the defining reality existing today?

Any political theology of significance must address self-ism at its roots. For political theology to be essential, it has to also provide recourse to stop the infection of this prevailing pandemic and to heal its mutated branches. Such viable recourse once again parallels the COVID-19 pandemic. The two main forms of recourse to fight the novel coronavirus center on the notion of herd immunity, for which these two forms are contrary if not opposing recourse. In order to attain herd immunity, where the majority of the population has antibodies to resist infection, one side proposes that no measures be taken to protect people from infection, thereby allowing them to contract the virus that will build antibodies for the majority to become immune. This is the recourse embraced by those who minimize the pandemic’s threat or don’t take it seriously. The other recourse for herd immunity depends on the efficacy of a vaccine to generate antibodies for immunity, with herd immunity possible if about 90% of the population is vaccinated—which is a huge goal given so much doubt about the vaccine. Whether herd immunity will be attained in the COVID-19 pandemic is an open question, which increasingly will remain unanswered as the virus keeps mutating.

Recourse for the self-ism pandemic is also faced with the issue of herd immunity. This is a critical issue when such recourse is applied to reductionism’s infection of self-ism. Since self-ism is rooted in reductionism, human inequality is the inevitable qualitative-relational consequence of this reduced condition—a consequence intrinsic to self-ism. Christians approach this reduced condition with an oversimplified or minimalized view of sin. With such a weak view of sin that doesn’t encompass sin as reductionism, Christians knowingly or inadvertently presume that a notion like herd immunity will prevent human inequality and keep human inequity in check. One segment of Christians believes that ongoing exposure to this reduced condition will build an aversion to it for the majority, whereby the condition will be shut down or at the very least kept from spreading. This mindset prevails in a democracy; and Christians in the U.S. notably presume a herd immunity exists in the majority to preclude human inequality—especially since the declaration etched in U.S. history is affirmed that “all men are created equal.” Little if any attention is given to what has evolved since creation, which has shaped the U.S. in spite of any revisionist history.

The other segment of Christians is not so presumptuous about herd immunity to self-ism, but they depend on a vaccine-like recourse to stop this infection and prevent its spread. What they depend on, however, is some external cure that can be injected into this condition, while oversimplifying, minimizing or even overlooking the inner-out changes in persons and their relationships needed to turn around, redeem and transform human inequality and inequity, in order to restore the created equality of all persons from inner out. For example, Christians promoting civil rights and social justice have presumed with good intentions that this mindset will turn this condition around, which certainly hasn’t become a reality. The reality of self-ism is the root of individualism that generates self-concerns, which evolve into self-interests that mutate into vested interests—all of which are subtly self-serving, even notably practiced in the name of Christ (cf. Mt 7:22-23). Such practice reflects, reinforces and sustains the inequality existing among Christians and churches, while at the very least being complicit with the human inequity of their surrounding contexts. Moreover, all these repercussions of self-ism are underlying in a collective context, which thus has no immunity to self-ism’s infection.

Both of the above segments presume some certainty of hope in the uncertainty of their recourse. Satan would want us to think that herd immunity is the recourse for reductionism’s infection at the innermost of the human condition. Indeed, the issue of herd immunity is unavoidable for all Christians and churches; and political theology is essential to resolve it at the heart of this evolved and mutated condition.

In either of the above courses, the recourse of herd immunity cannot have certainty, because (1) these recourses do not get to the innermost of the infection unique to self-ism, and (2) the source of this infection keeps mutating. Therefore, such recourse is ineffective and simply misleads and misguides on byways that effectively serves as a virtual reality. So much recourse in life today is misled and misguided on the byways of virtual reality, which subtly direct us off course from the substantively essential reality of God’s way of life. Consequently, because of the reality rooted in the pivotal shift to self-ism, the human way of life is reduced to a virtual reality—whose parameters in everyday life have become so enhanced to make it nearly impossible to distinguish the real from the virtual.

In modern culture, for example, technology has compounded the issue of who and what emerge. Ironically, this evolved reality is illuminated by Jaron Lanier, a computer scientist known as the father of virtual reality technology.

Something started to go wrong with the digital revolution around the turn of the twenty-first century. The World Wide Web was flooded by a torrent of petty designs sometimes called web 2.0.…

Communication is now often experienced as a superhuman phenomenon that towers above individuals. A new generation has come of age with a reduced expectation of what a person can be, and of who each person might become.… We make up extensions of your being, like remote eyes and ears (webcams and mobile phones) and expanded memory (the world of details you can search for online). These become the structures by which you connect to the world and other people. These structures in turn can change how you conceive of yourself and the world.

The central mistake of recent digital culture is to chop up a network of individuals so finely that you end up with mush. You then start to care about the abstraction of the network more than the real people who are networked, even though the network by itself is meaningless. Only the people were ever meaningful.…

The new designs on the verge of being locked in, the web 2.0 designs, actively demand that people define themselves downward.… The deep meaning of personhood is being reduced by illusions of bits [b(inary) (dig)its].[8]

Given the facts from someone at the center of this human development, we cannot deny how human life has progressed. The reality controlling the way of life for the herd has become obscure from the perception of the majority, including of Christians and churches. Furthermore, the phenomenon of virtual reality keeps evolving, so we should have urgent concerns of how AI is guiding us and where it is leading us. In the meantime, human inequality and inequity keep evolving beneath the illusions of progress, as the fittest emerge from the variants mutated by virtual reality.

The irrefutable facts of reductionism’s infection in the reality of self-ism render all human recourse to the virtual realm. In the reality of everyday life, human recourse for self-ism is nonexistent. Nevertheless, this does not leave human persons and their relationships without hope. In whatever uncertainties surround life today, however, that hope must be based on certainty to have the uncertainty of certainty in contrast to the certainty of uncertainty for hope noted above. The counter-relational workings of reductionism subtly misguide us in the virtual reality of certainty, while misleading us on the byways of uncertainty. The certainty of hope is found only on the whole-ly way of the whole-ly God, whose way of life is irreducible and nonnegotiable and thus not subject to any terms composed by self-ism—though it certainly is ongoingly subjected to self-ism’s terms, as encouraged relentlessly by Satan. The latter’s ongoing conflict continues even for Christians and churches until it is turned around from its evolutionary shift, redeemed from its limits and constraints, and transformed into its original and new created condition—which Christians and churches may claim in their theology but experience only virtually in their practice. This irreplaceable process involves self-ism returning to its created roots, so that its evolutionary roots will be uprooted and replaced in order for persons and relationships to grow into their qualitative-relational branches constituted by creation.

If we don’t know our roots and its branches, and understand what emerges from them and how they unfold, then what recourse do we have for our human condition and what hope can we claim with certainty that our whole persons and relationships together will grow in their created qualitative-relational condition?

The reality facing us is unavoidable. When we don’t know the roots of what defines our identity and determines our function in everyday life, we don’t know if they have evolved or not, and how they evolve. Even when Christians have some knowledge of their roots, if they don’t understand the who and the what of their persons and relationships, then they don’t know the real condition of “Where are you?”—as Adam evidenced (Gen 3:10-12). This subjects us more deeply to the counter-relational workings of reductionism and its qualitative-relational consequences, whereby human inequality and inequity become more entrenched in the human order that evolves in our way of life—evolving explicitly, implicitly and complicitly. Therefore, the undeniable crossroads before us is unavoidable in “Where are you?”: either progressing survival in self-consciousness or growing wholeness in person-consciousness.

Theological anthropology and the view of sin are critical to political theology, yet they all become insignificant when their roots shift from creation to evolution. The branches from our existing roots then emerge either in progressing survival or growing wholeness, either in the fitness of self-consciousness or the well-being of person-consciousness. Thus, theological anthropology and the view of sin are integral for political theology and their significance.

Human fitness has been conflated with human well-being, which renders the latter fragmented as the former evolves in inequality and with inequity. That’s the nature of survival progressing in self-ism infected by reductionism. These evolutionary repercussions and qualitative-relational consequences are not discerned by a reduced theological anthropology defining persons and determining relationships composed by a weak view of sin without reductionism. This makes it essential for all Christians to account for their theological anthropology and view of sin in order to know the real condition of “Where are you?”

The subtle counter-relational workings of reductionism among Christians and churches has evolved in notions of advancing in their faith and progressing in their ministry and mission. Pursuing these goals converges with the innate need to survive and the competitive desire to succeed: the progressing survival in an explicit or implicit comparative system engaged with complicity by Christians and churches, which even the early disciples openly engaged (Mt 18:1; Mk 9:33-34; Lk 9:46). This survival-succeed dynamic competing in a comparative system between us has become the norm among us, which has rendered the church fragmentary and reduced its persons and relationships to a new normal in their way of life (also depicted in their fellowship). This underlying progressing survival has shifted the reality of creation into a virtual reality, which at best only simulates the created who and what of persons and their relationships, while revising their human order. We must never underestimate the genius of Satan to infect us with reductionism and to mutate its presence and shaping impact on us. That’s why God always asks “What are you doing here?”

In the competitive ancient world of Israel, Elijah flourished as the person God created, growing in the created who and what of his person (1 Kgs 17-18). Then, Elijah shifted from his distinguishing person-consciousness to a redefining self-consciousness, when the competition intensified to reduce his success and threaten his survival (1 Kgs 19:1-2). Now refocused in comparative terms rather than on how his person flourished earlier to constitute his well-being, Elijah entered into the byway of survival mode (19:3-4,10, 13-14). Elijah lost the certainty of hope and was giving up at this critical juncture. Unlike self-conscious Elijah, however, many of God’s people engage the survival mode in order to progress, assuming that success is the source of their well-being in spite of their self-consciousness prevailing over person-consciousness. God asks “What are you doing here?’ and will pursue us as he did Elijah until we turn around from our byways.

In a competitive world, the byway of survival is a compelling alternate for our way of life when our persons and relationships are measured in comparative terms. On this prevailing comparative basis, who wouldn’t want to be the fittest, as the early disciples argued? Having the best distinctions is simply desirable, even if not explicitly measured in comparison with others. This appealing choice or dilemma is currently more ambiguous in the progress provided by genetic engineering; this sophisticated reshaping quantitative effort to advance the quality of humanity raises more questions than it has answers for.

“What are you doing here?” is inseparable from “Where are you?” As long as we don’t acknowledge the defining roots of our identity and function, nor recognize their determining branches composing the way of life for our persons and relationships, including its order and quality, than by default we undertake the byway of progressing survival. This is the default mode of the human relational condition, which pervades the life of Christians and churches to prevail as our human relational condition; and our condition prevails even by default until redeemed at the roots and transformed in the innermost solely from inner out. This is the door that the Word keeps knocking (even banging) on for us the open, so that the church and all its persons and relationships will grow in wholeness together (Rev 3:19-20).

The door remains open at this juncture of human history. Whether Christians and churches walk through it depends on the perception (1) of the crossroads before us, and (2) of the reality composing existing byways among us. The first perception requires knowing our roots and understanding how they’ve evolved. The second perception involves both humility and honesty to admit the existence of byways, and then to correct the course we are on without any evolutionary recourse. These perceptions are made integral by the whole theological anthropology and the strong view of sin encompassing reductionism, which provide the qualitative-relational basis for us to walk through the open door (3) for redemptive change to unite with the Word and (4) be transformed in the integrally equalized and intimate relationships together of wholeness—the wholeness distinguished incomparably in the qualitative image and relational likeness of the whole of God that constitutes God’s whole-ly (whole & uncommon) way of life.

These essential steps remove us from the byways of progressing survival to embark on the road of growing wholeness. Yet, before our hope is raised in certainty, we have to understand the nature of both the door to and the road for growing wholeness. First of all, this integral door and road are narrow in contrast to the wide door leading to the broad byways of progressing survival. If that is not an issue for taking these essential steps, the second part of their nature is the discomforting reality that this integral way is also difficult compared to how easy the byways are—as Jesus made definitive for all his followers (Mt 7:13-14). In other words, these essential steps turn us away from the majority in our surrounding contexts, remove us from what has been the norm, and take us out of our comfort zone—all necessary for our person from inner out to be vulnerably involved in the relational purpose and outcome of growing wholeness in our persons, relationships, their human order, and everyday way of life integrally personal and collective, private and public. Certainly, growing wholeness sounds good in our theology and practice, and it is an ideal notion to proclaim in our way of life. To make growing wholeness functional as the experiential truth and relational reality, however, requires nothing less and no substitutes of these essential steps to take us through the narrow door and involve us directly on the difficult road of growing wholeness. Political theology must integrally clarify and correct this process in our way of life to enable this journey to unfold to its relational outcome.

Even though the door to and road for growing wholeness are narrow and difficult as opposed to wide and easy, it is not the fit or fittest who are able to become whole and grow wholeness. The journey to be whole and grow wholeness is enabled solely on the basis of its roots in covenant, which is not about a mere contract, nor about the parameters for engagement in quid pro quo. Political theology has to be composed with the clarity of the roots of covenant in order to have the significance for our way of life to be on this journey as a relational reality, which is never virtual.

Central to political theology and its practice is discipleship, which is neither a notion nor an intention but the life-giving heart to the way of life for those following the Word. Because the Word made definitive the narrow door and difficult road to distinguish his followers, political theology has the critical responsibility to clarify and correct the way of life for those following a wider and easier road. The Word is irreducible for discipleship and thus nonnegotiable for his followers (as clarified in Mt 7:21-23). Therefore, political theology must clear away any theological fog that makes ambiguous the crossroads facing all Christians and churches.

In order to journey in the discipleship constituted on the road for growing wholeness, the narrow door must be distinguished from the wider ones in a theological fog. Thus, before we can enter the door to growing wholeness, our theological anthropology and view of sin have to be checked at the door. Why? Because no reduced theological anthropology and weak view of sin can enter through it and expect to journey to wholeness on these easier byways. Persons defined and relationships determined by a reduced theological anthropology and weak view of sin do not become whole and grow wholeness; rather they are relegated by reductionism to the limits and constraints of what persons do and have from outer in, whereby their fragmentary condition relegates relationships to inequality. For example, who in the body of Christ has the gift to grow wholeness? Yet, any distinctions used to answer this question are the norm for how we define each other and determine our relationships together in the church. Only whole theological anthropology and the strong view of sin encompassing reductionism enter through the door to the road for growing wholeness.

The journey of persons from inner out becoming whole and growing wholeness is rooted in covenant, which is the only basis that enables us on this narrow difficult road. The issue with covenant emerges when covenant is considered merely a contract; this constrains participants to its stipulations and thereby limits their expectations from the contract to its quantified terms. The problem with covenant unfolds when covenant is observed as a quid pro quo; this constrains participants to engaging in an exchange dynamic and limits the outcome to the quantitative parity of exchange. Both the issue and problem of covenant widen and make easier the road presumed for wholeness; furthermore, their assumed objectivity is compromised by the limits and constraints of their outer-in bias. Consequently, they both mistakenly assume to be enabled for this journey, when in fact they (1) have reduced and renegotiated the Word’s enabling covenant, and thus (2) have rendered its relational reality to a virtual reality that, at best, can merely simulate participating in this journey. Neither know the roots of covenant, nor do they understand what the Word’s covenant constitutes and how it functions.

The perceptual lens and interpretive framework used for covenant gain clarity only when its roots are known; and our perceptual lens and interpretive framework can be corrected from any refracted vision when covenant roots are understood. When what evolved from the beginning kept evolving and mutating in human life, God intervened as never before or since to establish the Noahic covenant (Gen 6-9:17). This historic covenant and its iconic sign shining hope through human history, however, is not the covenant central to political theology.[9] The Noahic covenant certainly is one of the roots of covenant, yet it functions only as the prelude secondary to the forthcoming primary covenant; and as such it is unable to lead us on the journey to wholeness. Here again, theological anthropology and the view of sin are critical to discern what is primary and what is only secondary.

The primal root of covenant emerged when God not only intervened on the human condition but most importantly constituted the journey to wholeness (cf. Num 6:24-26). This was established by the primary covenant God made with Abram (Gen 15:1-6; 17:1-2). This is the primal root for the primary covenant: “walk before me, and be blameless,” which Abram fulfilled to determine his new function “as righteousness” (Gen 15:6) and to define his new identity as “Abraham” (a leader on the journey to wholeness, Gen 17:4-7). What’s primary, however, should not be confused with what’s secondary, which again requires whole theological anthropology and the strong view of sin encompassing reductionism—nothing less and no substitutes.

In the Word’s covenant, the heart signifies the unmistakable function of what God seeks: the whole person, nothing less and no substitutes. When God made conclusive to Abram the terms for covenant relationship together, the Lord appeared to him directly and said clearly in order to constitute Abraham’s relational response: “Walk before me, and be blameless” (Gen 17:1). That is, “be involved with me in relationship together by being blameless (tamiym).” The tendency is to render “blameless” as moral purity and/or ethical perfection (cf. Gen 6:9), notably in Judaism by observance of the law (cf. 2 Sam 22:23-24). With this lens, even Paul perceived his righteousness as “blameless” (Phil 3:6). Yet tamiym denotes to be complete, whole, and is not about mere moral and ethical purity. Beyond this limited perception, tamiym involves the ontology of being whole, namely the whole person from inner out involved in the primacy of relationship together. Integrated with righteousness, tamiym completes the relational function to involve jointly the true and whole identity of the person.

Abraham’s relational response and involvement in reciprocal relationship together constituted the primacy of his new function (integral with his new identity) “as righteousness.” Abraham, contrary to a reduced theological anthropology and weak view of sin, was distinguished then only as follows: Righteousness (ṣĕdāqâh) needs to be understood as a relational term in relational language (notably in a juridical process about a covenant), which involves the relational dynamic of the whole of who, what and how a person is that others can count on to be this whole person in relationship together—a trust essential to significant relationships, without which render relationships tentative, shallow or broken. Righteousness in referential terms becomes an attribute merely describing information about someone, which is insufficient to account for the dynamic function of the whole person’s relational involvement. For God, the ancient poet declares, righteousness is the ongoing determinant that establishes God’s relational path—the whole of who, what and how God is that can be counted on in relationship (Ps 85:13). In relational terms, righteousness (both for God and others) confirms that the person presented to others in relationship is truly the person one says one is, therefore who can be counted to be nothing less and to function with no substitutes of the primary.

In God’s relational nature, the only way God engages in covenant relationship is by reciprocal relationship and never by unilateral relationship. The relational terms of reciprocal relationship together require the whole person’s involvement, which then requires the human agency of a person’s will to fulfill the terms for reciprocal relationship with righteousness and being whole. God holds human persons responsible for their human agency created for reciprocal relationship and holds accountable their choices of will in relationship together both in God’s context and the human context—“Where are you?” and “what are you doing here?”

Therefore, the journey to be whole and grow wholeness is enabled initially by this primary covenant: the covenant of reciprocal relationship together between the whole of God (not parts of God) and whole persons from inner out, who are relationally involved first and foremost in the primacy of this covenant relationship, whereby they can be counted on in the relationship to be the whole of who, what and how they are—always

with nothing less and never with any substitutes. Reciprocal may appear to be an exchange dynamic of quid pro quo, but the qualitative-relational terms composing this covenant from God preclude any such reduced observance. In order not to undertake such a wider, easier relationship, the Word enables persons for this journey with the supplemental covenant integral with the primary covenant, and thus inseparable from it.

The qualitative-relational terms for covenant relationship together were distinguished further to Moses—notably in face-to-face relationship together (Num 12:6-8)—in “the book of the covenant” (Mosaic covenant, Ex 24:7; 34:27-29; Dt 4:13). These distinguished qualitative-relational terms compose God’s Rule of Law, which commonly are reduced to a moral-ethical code of behavior to observe (perhaps to be perfect and blameless). Such observance, however, does not enable persons on the journey to be whole and grow wholeness, no matter how blameless they feel; in reality, a moral-ethical code reduces persons and fragments relationships—as the Word clarified and corrected of such observance (e.g. Mt 5:21-47). Contrary to the prominent perception of the book of Deuteronomy as the Book of Law, the fact of the matter is that Deuteronomy is the love story of God’s vulnerable relational involvement directly with his people (Dt, as the Book of Love, 4:37; 7:8; 10:15; 23:5; 33:3). Rather than detailing the law in referential terms, these qualitative-relational terms enable persons to journey to wholeness (e.g. Dt 18:9,13). In the words of the Word, covenant relationship is not established on the basis of quantitative terms but on the qualitative-relational terms of love in “God’s covenant of love” (Dt 7:7-9, NIV); and following God’s Rule of Law is significant only with our qualitative-relational involvement in “his covenant of love” (Dt 7:12-13, NIV).

These roots of covenant are irreducible and nonnegotiable, and the branches sown from them need to grow this distinguished practice of faith in our everyday way of life. These roots are not mere historic moments but grow the branches of a non-revisionary historical movement. The responsibility of political theology is to clarify when, where and how they are reduced or renegotiated, and correct them accordingly. The convergence of covenant roots and branches into the primacy of God’s covenant of love challenges what defines persons and how persons engage in relationships, both with God and each other. This challenge also becomes confronting face to face, that is, when the covenant of love reaches its culmination in the new covenant embodied by the Word—who is partaken of to fully enable those journeying together to be whole and grow wholeness (Lk 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25; Heb 8:6; 9:15; 2 Cor 3:6).

As the new covenant emerged and unfolded face to face to embody God’s covenant of love, its experiential truth and relational reality also sow the roots of the gospel in the primal roots of covenant relationship.

A discussion on the gospel may seem redundant to you, and it may seem unnecessary for political theology. Yet, we need to know the roots of the gospel to understand both what the Word embodied and the new covenant he brought. Not knowing the gospel’s roots opens the door widely to what are easily assumed to be branches of the gospel. Christians and churches operate with various assumptions about the gospel, all of which render their way of life through a wider door to an easier road. The way of life composed by political theology is responsible to clarify and correct such theology and practice. Thus, knowing the gospel’s roots and understanding its branches are essential for political theology to have this significance, both to God and to all of us.

What God created in the beginning was enacted by the Word (Jn 1:1-3). From the beginning, the human condition “to be apart” evolved, to which only the integral relational presence and response of the Word emerged to change the human condition (Jn 1:4-5). The primal roots of the Word’s relational presence and response unfolded in the primacy of covenant relationship (starting with Abraham) to enact the gospel’s relational purpose and outcome; this distinguished the news of the gospel. The news of the gospel is widely assumed to be good. Yet, what is presumed easily to be good does not distinguish the news of the whole gospel, and in fact could be contrary to it. The good news of the gospel has been reported in various ways, with selective facts, and with nuances of its truth. In this historical process, the gospel has even become variable good news composed by alternative facts and virtual news that have augmented the gospel outside the boundaries of its theological trajectory and relational path (as in Mt 7:13-14).

The news embodied by the Word’s presence and enacted by the Word’s involvement needs to be qualified by two interrelated proclamations of the gospel brought by the Word: (1) “He will proclaim justice to all persons, peoples, tribes and nations…until he brings justice to victory” (Mt 12:18,20); and (2) “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring common peace, but a sword…” (Mt 10:34-36, cf. Lk 2:34-35). Both of these inseparable proclamations qualify the news of the gospel by first making what we can claim from the gospel narrow, and secondly making what we can proclaim of the gospel difficult. There are qualifiers of these qualifiers, however, that need to be understood: (1a) the justice of the Word goes further and deeper than social justice and its related workings for the common good; and (2a) the Word doesn’t bring the peace commonly perceived by the human lens, but he does give the uncommon peace that constitutes human well-being only in wholeness (Jn 14:27). Anything less of the Word’s justice is just an premature justice, and anything less of the Word’s uncommon peace is an immature peace—which grieves the Word when God’s people don’t know the difference (Lk 19:41-42, cf. Eph 4:30).

These qualifiers narrow down what can be claimed from the Word’s gospel, and also make difficult what can be proclaimed from his whole gospel. Thus, the gospel we use in our political theology is the justice and peace we get in our way of life. This further qualifies whether the new covenant of the gospel we claim indeed enables us on the journey to be whole and grow wholeness, or it doesn’t.

The Word in the beginning composed the good news only in relational language, the relational terms of which need to be understood in order to embrace the gospel as good news for all human life. When the Word was embodied, Jesus enacted the relational terms that clarified the gospel and also corrected any misinformed news and fake news by exposing them with bad news—the bad news of the gospel.

In the manifesto summarizing the Word’s teaching that distinguishes his followers (Mt 5-7), Jesus clarifies his relational language and corrects the referentialization of God’s Rule of Law (5:17-48) and the object-ifying of their Rule of Faith (Mt 6-7). His teaching in relational language and his face-to-face interactions enacted the gospel also in this bad news. For the Word’s gospel, the good news emerges with the bad news, and the good doesn’t unfold without taking to heart the bad—the irreducible and nonnegotiable whole gospel of the Word. Simeon, who embraced the whole gospel as the Spirit revealed to him, clearly distinguished the gospel’s good and bad news, and he anticipated its impact on those in the tradition of God’s people:

“This child is destined for the falling and rising of many in God’s kingdom, and to be the significance that will be opposed so that the inner thoughts of many will be revealed—and a sword will pierce your own soul too” (Lk 2:25-35).

Therefore, the bad news of the gospel not only antecedes the good news but necessarily qualifies what the good news is that is essential for whole justice and uncommon peace—the whole-ly relational outcome of Jesus’ uncompromised gospel.

The roots and branches of the gospel not only challenge our theological anthropology and view of sin but intrusively confront them, just as the Word enacted. The Word’s gospel embodied face to face, by its integral composition also by necessity exposes the bad news of persons whose identity and function are reduced to outer in—that is, anything less and any substitutes of their whole persons created from inner out. He confronts any reduced theological anthropology and exposes the shame of those reflecting, reinforcing and sustaining the sin of reductionism—the shame that emerged from the primordial garden (Gen 3:7-9), which set into motion the injustice of the human condition. The shame of persons reduced from the whole of who, what and how they are (as in bosh, Gen 2:25) is the penultimate injustice that violates the vested rights from God inherent to all persons created in God’s image and likeness, thereby preventing the fulfillment of their inherent human need. Furthermore, the reduction of persons precludes the just claim to the privileged rights unique to all persons created in God’s qualitative image and relational likeness, because reduced persons do not function in their created uniqueness and thus lose their privileged rights by default. This is the justice intrinsic to the whole gospel that the Word brings to victory with wholeness (uncommon peace, Jn 14:27), which any claiming and proclaiming of the gospel cannot omit by default or exclude by design.

If reductionism is not the core of our view of sin, this challenges the gospel we claim, and confronts its salvation we proclaim as being saved from. Why? Because when the roots of the gospel do not go to the depth necessary to attend to reductionism, then that gospel’s salvific branch is truncated in what it saves from, as well as truncating or even missing its salvific branch of what it saves to. Such salvific branches may be sufficient for persons and relationships composed by a reduced theological anthropology, but they are insufficient for those from a whole theological anthropology. Unmistakably then, these roots and branches are by necessity intrinsic for political theology and will be discussed further, along with related context above, in coming chapters.[10]

Knowing “Where are you?” and “What are you doing here?” can only be understood from the roots of creation in the beginning, and by recognizing the roots that evolved from the beginning. From these conflicting and competing realities, we are faced with admitting that mutating branches evolved from these roots do indeed exist, if not prevail, in our way of life, our human order, and the rule of law determining their integrity and thus level of quality. Political theology is responsible specifically to clarify the nexus between these issues and correct the conflict between them. This responsibility must be fulfilled in order for political theology to be significant for the daily public and personal practice of Christians and churches. Anything less and any substitutes subject us all to the influential shaping of the counter-relational workings subtly encouraged by Satan.

[1] Neuroscientist Antonio Damasio finds qualitative feelings in function integral to the human brain; but for Damasio this notion of the qualitative is determined by the limits of the quantitative, which is certainly insufficient to define the whole person’s primary roots. See Antonio Damasio, Self Comes to Mind: Constructing the Conscious Brain (New York: Pantheon Books, 2010).

[2] For an expanded study on theological anthropology, see my study The Person in Complete Context: The Whole of Theological Anthropology Distinguished (Theological Anthropology Study, 2014). Online at http://www.4X12.org.

[3] Hebrew and Greek word studies used in this study are taken from the following sources: Horst Balz, Gerhard Schreider, eds., Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990); Colin Brown, ed., The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975); R. Laid Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., Bruce Waitke, eds., Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, 2 vols. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980); Ernst Jenni, Claus Westermann, Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, trans. Mark E. Biddle, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997); Gerhard Kittel, ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 10 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974); Harold K. Moulton, ed., The Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978); W.E. Vine, Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1981); Spiros Zodhiates, ed., Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible (Chattanooga: AMG Publ., 1996).

[4] For a discussion on the social function of the brain, see neuroscientist John Cacioppo’s research on loneliness in loneliness: Human Nature and the Need for Social Connection (New York: W.W. Norton, 2008).

[5] For a discussion on this development, see David Held, Anthony McGrew, David Goldblatt & Jonathan Perraton, eds., Global Transitions: Politics, Economics and Culture (Stanford, CA; Stanford University Press, 19991); and also Vinoth Ramachandra, Subverting Global Myths: Theology and the Public Issues Shaping Our World (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008).

[6] For this discussion on AI, see John C. Lennox, 2084: Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Humanity (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Reflective, 2020).

[7] Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986).

[8] Jaron Lanier, You Are Not a Gadget: A Manifesto (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2010), 3-20.

[9] In contrast, David VanDrunen makes the Noahic covenant central and foundational for political theology in Politics after Christendom: Political Theology in a Fractured World (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2020).

[10] For an expanded study on the gospel’s justice and peace, see my study Jesus’ Gospel of Essential Justice: The Human Order from Creation through Complete Salvation (Justice Study, 2018). Online at http://www.4X12.org.