Ch 5 The Calculus for Human Life and the Algorithm for the Human Condition

“I will make justice the measuring line and righteousness the plumb line.”

The U.S. Supreme Court and lower courts have dismissed all lawsuits against voter fraud in the recent election, because none of them made a legitimate case to support the accusations of fraud. Making a case legitimate for the courts is presumed to be based on the law, a calculus which is not always a good assumption to apply even for the courts. Intervening variables such as politics must also be accounted for in determining the legitimacy of a case and its merits; intervening influences certainly have skewed the court’s calculus such that a calculus of variations and finite differences must also be included instead of making assumptions.

In the court of public opinion, making a case is less about its legitimacy and more about its appeal to political variations and cultural differences. For example, amplifying misinformation, disinformation and fake news is the growing influence of conspiracy theories, which have composed cases that directly speak to existing affective polarization and appeal to the stress of minimalist disorder. This growth is cultivated and nurtured by the pervasive memes that have captivated the internet to masquerade in the legitimizing framework of the status quo. Thus, for example, by exploiting efforts to protect children from the sexual abuse by the “enemy.” QAnon has garnered support from a wider demographic having good intentions. Motivating even unsuspecting Christians. The consequences of all this have yet to play out in what’s next in the coming days. Waiting to see, however, is not an option for political theology. The calculus of variations and differences existing around us must be included in order for Christians and churches to have their calculus for human life to be legitimate, and their algorithm for the human condition to be significant—with nothing less and no substitutes defining their identity and determining their function in their everyday way of life.

All humans are conceived and born with a common genome unique to humankind, which on the one hand is invariable and thus an independent condition. Yet, on the other hand, intervening factors from both heredity and the environment result in differences from person to person. These emerging differences from birth define our variation in anatomical traits, which collectively is called a phenotype in biology. A phenotype also includes psychological traits, which result mainly from its environment while anatomical traits result mainly from its heredity—though environment and heredity factor into both traits. The key to the formation of a phenotype is the intervening factors that determine the variations from person to person as well as their collective differences in human life. Therefore, while the human genome is the invariable independent condition, a phenotype is always a dependent condition variably shaped by intervening factors.

Biology defines the human genome from outer in to quantify who the person is, and thereby defines a human phenotype for what and how persons are. Theology defines the human genome from inner out to distinguish who the person is in primary qualitative relational terms. Biology’s genome is limited and thus incomplete, whereas theology’s genome is whole. Political theology, however, must also account for any human phenotype that has evolved to distort the perception and understanding of the human genome. For both biology and theology, this requires accounting for the intervening factors that shape the formations of a phenotype.

In mathematics, the accuracy of any calculations depends on accounting for intervening variables (or dependent variables) by the calculus of variations and finite differences, which determine their effect on the dependent variable being calculated. The resulting dependent variable is inseparable from the independent variable in the equation. For biology, the outer-in human genome is the independent variable that becomes affected by a phenotype’s variations and differences formed by intervening factors. For theology, to know and understand how the inner-out human genome of creation is affected in everyday human life is directly correlated to the calculus of the existing variations and differences of a phenotype composed by intervening factors. Political theology cannot assume the integrity of the whole human genome and thus presume its well-being without this calculus of its dependent phenotype. Like math, only far more consequential, this human equation also is the unavoidable challenge before us that must be solved in order to heal the integrity of the inner-out genome and to ensure its well-being for all human life regardless of phenotype.

Since the beginning, the inner-out human genome was created in the qualitative image and relational likeness of the whole of God to constitute the qualitative-relational integrity of human identity (or ontology) and function. What phenotype has evolved from the beginning to alter human identity and function in emerging variations and existing differences? First and foremost, the qualitative integrity of human identity and function was mutated by the quantitative from outer in. When quantified from outer in, human identity and function are reduced to the quantitative distinctions of what they have and do, the differences of which form a phenotype that compromises the qualitative integrity of the inner-out human genome. How so?

Consider how recent crises have amplified “Black Lives Matter,” and also amplified subtle pushback from “All Lives Matter” as well as aggressive reaction from variants of “White Lives Matter.” On the one hand, certainly black lives and all lives matter. Yet, on the other hand, the significance of matter is based merely on a phenotype and doesn’t get to the underlying depth of the inner-out human genome. In other words, the identity and function of these protestors are based on their quantitative outer-in distinctions (their specific phenotype variant), all of which compromise the qualitative integrity of all persons in the human genome regardless of phenotype. What does this mean for race relations, and what is its implication for racism?

Democracies can declare “All men are created equal” and promote “government by the people for the people.” Yet, this common gendered language and apparent distinction exposes a phenotype that prevails over the human genome; and this subtle dynamic transposing what’s primary is typically not understood. What kind of phenotype does this language communicate to a young child, or to anyone older learning English as their second language? And what does this language tell citizens who are limited or denied direct participation in this government, or who don’t benefit personally from it?

In this prevailing phenotype, all lives don’t matter because all lives are not important, that is, as created in the whole human genome. Accordingly and consequentially, this phenotype doesn’t equalize all persons and also isn’t inclusive of all people. This inequality and inequity should be expected even in a democracy whenever a phenotype displaces the inner-out human genome and compromises its qualitative integrity. Along with gender, race is the most prominent distinction that composes a phenotype, the quantitative basis of which compromises the qualitative integrity of the human genome’s identity and function for all persons created in the whole of God’s qualitative image. Therefore, as long as a phenotype is the basis for human relations, race (along with gender) is the prominent distinction that skews relations in human life to a comparative order of inequality, because human identity and function based on what one has and does relegates some as better (as in whites) and others as less (as in blacks).

The inequality of this human order has evolved from the beginning, and its variants even in the name of democracy continue to reinforce and sustain the inequity of racism—even under the illusion of God’s human genome, which has been distorted by a phenotype. Racism is in the DNA of a phenotype and will not be resolved until that phenotype no longer prevails. Even if black lives matter in a phenotype, black lives will not be important without their qualitative significance constituted by the qualitative integrity of the inner-out human genome. As long as the outer-in distinctions of a phenotype are defining for human identity and function—this includes capitalizing Black over black—discrimination of any kind will be reinforced and sustained in human life and the human order, including by and for Christians and churches.

The full resolution of discrimination in general and racism in particular has not unfolded from the efforts of social justice and for civil rights. Notwithstanding their good intentions, social justice centers on a phenotype of the human genome rather than the human genome itself. Consequently, social justice is focused on the outer-in distinctions, and thus by default social justice is skewed by the quantitative limits and constraints of those distinctions. This biased lens was evident, for example, in the development of the Civil Rights Movement, in which its leaders exercised gender bias and discrimination to favor men over women. The limits as well as constraints of social justice and civil rights remain until their calculus for human life shifts in the human equation from the variable phenotype (formed as a dependent variable) to the invariable human genome (established as the independent variable). And their algorithm for this human condition will not bring full resolution until the following is accomplished: The intervening variables affecting the qualitative-relational integrity of the human genome by the dependent phenotype shaped by those intervening variables are neutralized or eradicated, so that resolutions will be completed in the wholeness of the inner-out human genome’s identity and function for all persons regardless of phenotype. Until then, this human condition keeps recycling, as we’ve witnessed for too many years now, whether in racism, sexism or xenophobia.

Therefore, the qualitative integrity of the human genome is also compromised whenever its integral relational integrity is fragmented by a mutated phenotype that reduces the primacy of relationships created to be equalized and intimate together in the relational likeness of the Trinity. From the beginning, human relationships were reduced from the relational integrity “not to be apart from the whole” (Gen 2:18), which fragmented their relationships to a secondary function for the sake of making primary outer-in identity and function. The evolving occupation and preoccupation with the secondary of life to now be primary in human identity and function—contrary to and in conflict with the primary identity and function of the whole human genome—mutated relationships to a condition of relational distance, which reduced relationships to a mere association and fragmented them in variants of community, marriages and families, even in church fellowships. Obviously, technology has intervened to amplify relational distance in our human relational condition. What other intervening influences can you identify? Have politics, and its identity politics and partisan function defined Christians’ identity and determined their function in the strain of affective polarization and the stress of minimalist disorder?

More significant, however, is all the quantitative variants evolving from the beginning that have compromised the integral qualitative-relational integrity of human identity and function constituted by the invariable human genome. Starting with the human desire to progress, and perhaps to survive as the fittest and to be the greatest, human persons and their relationships in everyday life have been susceptible to the subtle and seductive influence of reductionism’s counter-relational workings, which continues to shape our phenotype always by compromising the qualitative-relational integrity of the human genome—an immeasurable cost to pay for what’s only secondary. The ongoing consequence on our identity and function, personally and collectively, continues to be incalculable, eluding the prevailing calculus for human life and rendering inconsequential the pervasive algorithm for this human relational condition. This puts the created human genome in a fog, making it indistinguishable from a phenotype that envelops our identity and function, our relationships and their human order in the shroud of its variants.

So, is there any place for a phenotype to have legitimacy? Yes, when a phenotype reinforces and sustains the qualitative-relational integrity of the human created-invariable-whole genome rather than compromises it; and when a phenotype reinforces and sustains the genome’s human identity and function rather than fragments or displaces their qualitative image and relational likeness. Nothing less and no substitutes warrant the use of a phenotype, and anything less and any substitutes require a phenotype to be changed or at least neutralized. This involves addressing the intervening variables from culture and politics just as the Word engaged these contexts with the integrated three-fold approaches to culture and politics (notably in the conflict and neutralizing approaches)—with nothing less than the whole theological anthropology defining our identity and determining our function, and with no substitutes for the strong view of sin encompassing reductionism.

Since its historic composition, “We the people” has been a rallying call for democracy and the shouting cry to be free. As a proclamation of “We the people,” however, any such freedom should not be confused with an individual(s) being free to do whatever they want. This has led to a recent movement to restore the us in U.S. For the sake of the majority, there are limits and also constraints on individual(s) freedom. At the same time, “We the people” is not free to define its composition in whatever way desired, that is, if it in fact truly represents all the people distinguished by we. Yet, historically and currently in polarizing times, “We” has not been inclusive of “the people” constituted by the inner-out human genome but limited to a phenotype; this has compromised the qualitative-relational integrity of the genome’s identity and function for all people. Since the outer-in identity and function of some people don’t measure up to a prevailing phenotype, then they are explicitly or implicitly excluded from the functional significance of “We the people.” In other words, the common dynamic of inclusion always includes some form of exclusion.

Christians and churches need to reckon with “We the people,” both in public life and in church life. The issue between the created human genome and a phenotype has been an ongoing tension and conflict in human life that needs to be recalculated in our fragmentary human condition currently amplified by affective polarization. God has dealt with this throughout the course of human life, beginning at a key point in humanity. Underlying its narrative details (Gen 11:1-9), humanity appeared to come together in Babylonia, and “We the people” resolved to construct their identity above all of human life, by which they would function as one people and not be fragmented. The problem with their good intentions, however, was that “we the people” was based on a phenotype of outer-in identity and function that constructed their collective life subtly contrary to and in conflict with the inner-out human genome of God’s creation. God would not allow this illusion of human unity evolving from the counter-relational work of reductionism masquerading in self-autonomy and self-determination. Thus, God simply relegated them back to the truth of the hard reality facing them: They were just a fragmentary majority lacking wholeness in their way of life and human order.

In the new normal of polarization, a pivotal cultural-political issue facing all Christians is the democratic notion that the majority rules. In such democratic contexts (including in churches), this notion has never insured the same benefits for all those composing the majority and certainly not for those outside the majority (cf. Acts 6:1, noted earlier). The hard reality is that democracy does not serve all the people but only a fragment of the majority, or mainly the dominant segment of the majority. This keeps exposing the prevailing phenotype displacing God’s human genome. Why God doesn’t intervene as demonstrated in Babylonia is an open question, but God holds us accountable for reinforcing and sustaining a fragmentary majority lacking wholeness in our public and church way of life and human order. Whether Christians care about or are even aware of those not included because of being excluded by design of a phenotype is a pressing question, which the Word confronts us with “Where are you?” and “What are you doing here?” Even by default, where and what are calculated by the human genome and not a phenotype, thus the algorithm for this human relational condition is up to us to be responsible for the well-being of those left out, as well as accountable for the ongoing care of those lacking. We cannot simply delegate this algorithm to a democratic system to replicate, nor even assume that this is merely a quantitative outer-in reality that can depend on measures using an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm to duplicate. This is a heart matter for the whole person from inner out to respond to on the basis of their genome, and not simply a mind matter that a phenotype can define.

Human inequality and inequity are at the heart of a fragmentary majority, whose human relational condition defines the identity and determines the function of those composing this majority. Are Christians and churches part of this composition? Absolutely. Either by direct participation or by default, collectively we have been enablers or complicitors of this common majority that is both fragmentary in its way of life and fragmenting of its human order. The strain of affective polarization and the stress of minimalist disorder make status-ing in quo easier for us, with the status quo app a convenient approach to maintaining involvement in or association with the common majority. “What are you doing here?” makes evident the shortcomings in our calculus for human life, which reflects not accounting for the intervening cultural-political factors that have compromised the independent human genome by a dependent phenotype, and thus has flipped around the human equation with skewed and biased calculations for promoting human life and addressing the human relational condition. And Christians and churches have been in the mix of the majority that reinforces and sustains this human equation fragmenting human life and its human order. The hard reality is that a fragmentary majority merely reflects the human relational condition.

Christians and churches will continue to be a part of this common fragmentary majority until we willfully disengage from it by becoming members of the whole minority. The existential bad of a fragmentary majority is the absence of just-nection in its human order, which reflects the way of life intrinsic to a prevailing phenotype that defines the majority’s identity and determines its function, whereby those who are different are subjected to inequality and inequity. There may be some elements of immature justice (as in social justice) existing in its human order, but this is insufficient for the mature justice required to establish the right order of relationships together in the created human genome for persons to have the right relational connection in God’s likeness—rights that social justice and civil rights don’t establish. Only this right of mature justice is integral for the just-nection that distinguishes the whole minority of those restored to the qualitative-relational wholeness of God’s human genome.

The Word is clear about the calculus needed to distinguish the whole minority from a fragmentary majority. First of all, this minority is based on a solid rock foundation (as in Mt 7:24-25) with the Word as “the cornerstone” (Isa 28:16; Eph 2:19-20). This foundation is not a static condition with the Word as the cornerstone in name only (cf. Mt 7:21-23). In contrast this foundation revolves on the Word’s relational imperative (Mt 7:24) that forms the integral relational context and process essential for this minority to be whole. This integral condition is an uncommon condition from what is common to a fragmentary majority, as well as a “stumbling stone” for a common majority (Isa 8:14; Rom 9:32). How does this become a stumbling stone? As a former activist for a fragmentary majority—who openly disabled justice and enabled injustice to oppress the whole minority—Paul exposed the defining dynamic for the majority’s identity and function based on the quantity of what they do and have (Rom 9:32). The resulting outer-in distinctions made evident the underlying comparative system pervading a fragmentary majority that reflected, reinforced and sustained the human inequality and inequity encompassing the human relational condition. The cornerstone of the qualitative-relational Word will not only “make people stumble” but will also “make them fall” (9:33). In other words, people (including Christians) stumble and fall with a reduced theological anthropology and a weak view of sin lacking reductionism.

In this relational context and process, the Word made definitive the calculus necessary to distinguish this whole minority as uncommon from the prevailing common: “I will make mature justice the measuring line and righteousness the plumb line” (Isa 28:17, NIV), because “righteousness and justice are the foundation of your kingdom, its Rule of Law and human order” (Ps 89:14). Integral to mature justice is righteousness— sedaqah, a legal term used to distinguish relationships engaged by the whole of who, what and how a person is, and thereby can be counted on by others in the relationship to be that whole person from inner out. The calculus for righteousness, therefore, precludes being defined by the outer-in differences of a phenotype, which then creates opportunities to build on the solid basis of the just-nection necessary for human equality and equity.

This uncommon relational context and process of the whole minority, however, cannot be presumed and must be ongoingly reinforced and sustained by direct engagement in the Word’s integrated three-fold approaches to the culture and politics of a fragmentary majority. Thus, using the qualitative-relational compass is essential to navigate this polarized context. For example, how does the mindset of NIMBY reflect a fragmentary majority? And how do Christians reflect, reinforce and sustain this mindset (including like-mindedness) as enablers and complicitors to allow such thinking to play out? Consequently, is the like-mindedness practiced among Christians and churches any different than NIMBY?

Given the polarization saturating our minds and hearts, how well are Christians and churches following the Word’s calculus for his whole minority? The cultural and political realities today are challenging to say the least. More so, they confront us with the ongoing pivotal decision either to be absorbed into these realities or to be distinguished from them. For sure, the former decision involves status-ing in quo of a fragmentary majority, while the latter involves taking on an identity and function that distinctly contrasts to the majority’s. Furthermore, the latter involves the inner-out uncommon that unavoidably conflicts with the outer-in common, which cannot be presumed possible to integrate and at times even to coexist. The psalmist further illuminates this relational context and process for the uncommon whole minority: “O LORD, who may abide in your tent? Who may dwell in your holy hill?” (Ps 15:1)—that is to say, who may be involved in your uncommon presence and belong to your uncommon family?—“Those who walk blamelessly [tamiym] and practice what is righteous” (sedeq, v.2). Tamiym is to be whole in one’s person distinguished by sedaqah’s inner-out of who, what and how the person is and thereby can be counted on to be that person in relationships together, because “they communicate in relationships this truth from their heart”—which doesn’t maintain relational distance, for example, with misinformation or in other ways commonly creating relational distance. Examine those relational contexts elaborated on by the psalmist that reinforce and sustain relational distance, all of which fragment persons and relationships in human inequality and inequity (15:3-5).

The subtle counterpart to the psalmist’s examples is the like-mindedness prevailing among Christians and churches that creates variants of relational distance—a relational condition which affective polarization easily turns into a comparative competition that often renders the other as the enemy. But even as the enemy, the Word’s Rule of Law to “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Mt 5:44) cannot be engaged with relational distance. As a substitute, Christians shape their rule of law to support a compromise to the qualitative-relational integrity of the uncommon inner-out human genome (e.g. Mt 5:21-43). What they may call righteousness to justify their way of life, in the truth of the Word actually disqualifies them from being involved with the whole of God’s uncommon presence and belonging to the Word’s uncommon family (Mt 5:20).

Because those belonging to the whole minority navigate a narrow difficult road with the qualitative-relational compass intrinsic to the Word’s irreducible and nonnegotiable Rule of Law, they don’t have the flexible liberty assumed by those of a fragmentary majority on a wider easier byway (cf. Isa 56:11; Jer 18:15). Once Christians take a byway and appeal to that liberty in one way or another—for example, in freedom of speech to voice their opposition or with freedom of religion to have in-person worship—they assume their place in a fragmentary majority at the expense of being connected to the Word’s whole minority. The subtlety of engaging a majority’s process creates fog for Christians and churches to understand the underlying flaw or deficiency of democracy, which is its fostering of the individual with freedom (contrary to 1 Cor 10:23-24; Rom 15:1-2; Gal 5:13; 1 Pet 2:16).

In and of itself, focus on the individual is not bad or wrong; however, promoting the individual is never done in a vacuum and always done in direct context with others. Thus, priority given to the individual is always accomplished by giving others a lower priority. Despite any good intentions, therefore, the individual’s gain always comes at the expense of those others. In other words, democratic individualism is simply an evolved variant of self-ism, whose self-consciousness shapes the collective conscience of a democracy and its fragmentary majority; and its effects and affects reverberate through the human order to reinforce and sustain inequality and inequity. In God’s human order, the individual person’s well-being is always contingent of the well-being of the human family, locally and at large.

In a fragmentary majority, common political views gain basis in the worldview of their proponents, which is rarely scrutinized with significance by the majority. In this context, if Christians don’t articulate the uncommon worldview for their political views (as in Isa 9:6-7), then they are absorbed by and into a majority’s political views such that they now reinforce and sustain those views as enablers or complicitors. Even more consequential, they become enablers of injustice and disablers of justice, whether willfully or by default. In the existential reality of this human relational condition, only the just-nection based on the Word’s calculus of mature justice and whole righteousness can restore them to belong from inner out to his uncommon minority family in whole relationship together.

Its’s tempting for Christians and churches to turn to a fragmentary majority for the algorithm to address the human relational condition. Even if we may believe they resolve our own relational condition among ourselves, yet such algorithms would be incompatible to apply to the human relational condition because they would be insufficient to get to the depth and breadth of humanity’s condition. This is the majority’s bias that Christians and churches have absorbed into their daily lens to form myopia. Without getting to the heart of the human problem, its relational condition will merely recycle in variants and thereby keep repeating, as evident in human history and church history. This incompatibility is apparent to the integrated citizens of the Word’s kingdom, whose primary identity and function situated in the surrounding political-cultural context of a fragmentary majority are always defined and determined by their whole minority (cf. Jn 17:14-18). Such algorithms would commonly not seem incompatible for Christians and churches, who have crafted their citizenship in a fragmentary majority either as dual citizens with the convenient separation of church and state, or as hybrid citizens under the assumption of church-state compatibility—perhaps with the state being an extension of the kingdom of God. Integrated citizens are guided by the qualitative-relational compass from the Word’s Rule of Law, whereas dual and hybrid citizens rely on variant rules of law for guidance that widens the way for variable application.

In mathematics, probability is the rule by which calculus determines its calculations; the more probable the calculus is the better its calculations. In physical science, probability continues to be the rule in the conclusions made. In human life, however, probability is only theoretical and has no existential certainty; thus, it has no valid basis of certainty to be the rule for human life—in spite of any reliability that probability may provide to make the calculus for human life. From the beginning, the human relational condition doesn’t exist with probability, which was the false assumption underlying the construction of the Tower of Babel. The human relational condition evolves with variants of life’s similarities, the mutations of which have been improbable and even illogical to prevailing human thinking. So, then, what should be the rule for human life.

The improbability of human life due to its human relational condition was certainly not lost or forgotten by the God of creation, whose human genome has been subjected ongoingly to a phenotype. Therefore, the Word made no assumptions of probability when forming the covenant relationship together of love but provided the irreducible and nonnegotiable Rule of Law essential (1) for the calculus for human life together and (2) for the algorithm for the human relational condition. Throughout the history of God’s people, however, this improbability of human life has been lost or forgotten; thus, the influence of the human relational condition has been instrumental in the shaping of variant rules of law that effectively compromise the Word’s Rule of Law. These variants have been composed even with good intentions and under the assumption of God’s ordination. This is currently where many Christians and churches are found and need to be relocated in the Word’s Rule of Law by its qualitative-relational compass.

In the existential bad surrounding us today, our political views could reflect reasoned thought, but such views often lack logical thinking because of the bias of partisan and identity politics. This bias is amplified by affective polarization, which readily rotates the norm of reason to rationalization. Political philosophy needs to be both reasoned and logical, on the one hand, yet also have the qualitative-relational understanding that reflects the human order of God’s creation. This understanding is hard to gain in the context of a fragmentary majority that formulates its rule of law with the uncertainty of probability. Gaining this understanding unfolds from the irreplaceable requisite to learn the qualitative-relational depth of the Word’s Rule of Law (Ps 119:27,34,73,144,169); this integral understanding also forms the qualitative-relational basis for teaching and learning in Christian education at all levels, from the church to the academy (119:99-100).

In today’s politically and culturally polarizing conditions, Christians and churches have been doing a balancing act using the U.S. Constitution’s rule of law to define their rights in human life. These rights, however, are limited to the permissible rights of a fragmentary majority that are also constrained by a phenotype. Because the ruling nexus inscribed in the Word’s Rule of Law is disconnected in their balancing act, the vested rights of God’s human genome and the privileged rights of the Word’s whole minority are precluded, thus creating illusions about where they are and what they are doing here. Their balancing act makes evident the truth and norm gymnastics employed, in order to get their end goal accomplished or merely to have their desires fulfilled. This norm of rationalization knowingly or inadvertently justifies variants of truth to balance the bad with the good, whereby the bad news of the whole gospel is diminished always with the unintended result of its good news minimalized. In other words, turning to a variant rule of law involves them in (1) the rationalization that their end justifies the use of any means, or simply becomes a convenient end in itself—either of which reinforces and sustains their primary citizenship in a fragmentary majority—that (2) both reduces and renegotiates the Word’s Rule of Law primary for the way of life of the identity and function in the Word’s whole minority.

On just the basis of the qualitative-relational Word, not quantified in referential terms, political theology counters truth and norm gymnastics directly. In so doing without apology but with love, it exposes this common-izing process that ongoingly works to diminish, minimalize and reconstitute the uncommon of those following the Word’s narrow difficult Way of whole Life based on the certainty of Truth constituting his Rule of Law. Until this integral rule prevails for Christians and churches, our calculus for human life will continue to be incomplete and our algorithm for the human relational condition will remain insufficient.

Most of the rules in human life come with an exception. That is, whenever or wherever the rules may apply, there will always be exceptions made in their application. At the point where exceptions are attached to rules of life, this opens to door to probability defining the calculus for human life and determining algorithms for the human relational condition. This certainly renders uncertain the application and outcome of the rules for existential life, with the rights from those rules becoming only relative. Current rules of law are enveloped in this fog as exceptions are a fact of life for the status quo of a fragmentary majority. Exceptions while status-ing quo include making concessions or compromise, which politicize the rule of law mainly with the balancing act of the bad. This exceptionalist mindset is not overlooked by the Word, whose relational involvement is palpable. This is illustrated by a “Non Sequitur” comic strip with the subtitle of “Moses’ Question and Answer Period”: Standing before the majority with the Ten Commandments tablets in his hands, Moses says “My mother always said there’s no such thing as a stupid question. So I’ll go ask and get back to you on that.” He then proceeds up the mountain to ask God, and he returns with the tablets after being zapped to say, “OK…so my mother was wrong, and no, they’re not like menu options.”[1]

The Word’s Rule of Law has consistently been subjected to exceptions in one form or another; in fact, the embodied Word was frequently accused of making such exceptions (e.g. Mk 2:16,18,24; 3:2). Those presumably following the Word have also made exceptions with the assumption of being justified. However, the Word clearly clarified and corrected exceptions made to his Rule of Law in order to unequivocally distinguish (1) the plumb line of righteousness for the calculus for human life to be complete as constituted in the Word’s whole minority, and (2) the measuring line of justice for the algorithm for the human relational condition to be sufficient to make whole the fragmentation of persons and relationships from reductionism.

Who, what and how we are emerge from and unfold with the state of our righteousness. Righteousness is not an attribute, which is how Christians usually think of it. Rather righteousness is the constituting root that bears the fruit of our identity (ontology) and function, determining the reality of who, what and how our person is in everyday life—the ontology and function in likeness to the God of righteousness. Thus, righteousness is integral for the integrity of our person and our involvement in relationships—just as it is for God’s presence and involvement—which produce the underlying basis for mature justice and its outcome of uncommon peace. Accordingly, the state of our righteousness is crucial, and any illusion about its roots or its fruit is deeply consequential for the nature and extent of justice and peace we can engage in. This is the basis for the psalmist declaring for the LORD that “righteousness composes the wholeness of his presence and involvement” because “righteousness and peace kiss” (Ps 85:10,13) and “righteousness and justice are the foundation for your authority and rule of law” (Ps 89:14, cf. Isa 11:3-5).

Righteousness, however, has been one of the key terms whose understanding has eluded much theology and practice, with direct consequences for peace and justice. The central either-or disjunction around which Jesus’ manifesto for his followers revolves is this:

“Unless your righteousness exceeds [goes beyond to be full] the so-called righteousness of the reductionists, you will never be whole in God’s kingdom, be right with God’s authority and just by his rule of law” (Mt 5:20).

The reductionists (segments of Judaism) simply constructed a new normal for righteousness, which reduced the wholeness of God’s authority and fragmented the justice of God’s Rule of Law. This “new” normal righteousness emerged from a reduced theological anthropology that quantified persons to the outer in by fragmenting the law to simplified identity markers, by which they quantified their practice in secondary matters for their self-determined function in what amounted to self-justification (sound familiar?). The qualitative-relational terms for the primacy of covenant relationship together in wholeness (as in Gen 17:1; Ps 119:1) no longer were the basis for righteousness as defined by God (as in Gen 15:6; Rom 4:1-3). Notable in this reconstruction of righteousness to the “new” normal were the administrators of God’s law (priests, Levites), who lived in and promoted their selective bias shaping the rule of law in human terms for peace and justice—all contrary to and in conflict with Levi (Mal 2:5-9). YHWH dispelled their illusion and exposed their delusion, subsequently replacing them with the High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek (king of Peace) to constitute the true righteousness of the new covenant relationship together (Isa 11:3-5; Heb 6:19-20).

Yet, a new normal for the identity and function of who, what and how we are subtly prevails today—quantified by the internet and amplified by social media—and perhaps is more embedded with our illusions and entrenched in our delusions of peace and justice. Along with its adaptation by technology, this so-called new normal evolves in one way or another by the selective bias (1) expressed in reverence of status and prestige, (2) exercised with idolization of power and influence, and (3) demonstrated by the glorification of wealth and resources. In all their forms at all levels of human life, this composition of an assumed new normal has reflected, reinforced and sustained our human relational condition and has interfered with its redemptive change—shortchanging or retarding the basic outcome of the Word’s whole gospel.

Illusions and delusions from the new normal have seduced Christians and preoccupied us with the secondary over the primary in our everyday priorities (as the Word outlines, Mt 6:19-32). But, the Word counters any new normal for righteousness, peace and justice with “seek first and foremost his kingdom and his righteousness” (Mt 6:33). That is, not to “strive” (as in NRSV) for an attribute called righteousness but “pursue” (zeteo) the whole presence and involvement of who, what and how God is and can be counted on to function in relationship together. If God’s integrity is not accountable in relationship, what significance does “his righteousness” warrant to pursue? Likewise, in this primacy of reciprocal relationship composed by God’s authority and Rule of Law, the who, what and how we are can also function in likeness to God’s righteousness; and in this mutual accountability, the relational outcome will include the secondary necessary for wholeness of life in its created justice. Those who pursue his righteousness “will be filled with satisfaction” (chortazo, Mt 5:6)—not necessarily happy in their outer-in secondary matters but satisfied with the whole integrity of their person from inner out, enacted integrally in the primacy of relationship.

This is the only righteousness that distinguishes the whole ontology and function of who, what and how we are as his followers—those who belong relationally (not referential members) in his family and thus “I know you.” Furthermore, contrary to common priests of the new normal, from this High Priest also emerges “a holy [uncommon] priesthood” to constitute the whole identity of all of us in his likeness to function as “a royal priesthood” (1 Pet 2:5,9) in order to be right as his whole-ly sentinels of human life. This is the uncommon righteous priesthood of followers who administer justice only by the nonnegotiable relational terms of the Word’s Rule of Law and thereby who make the irreducible peace of wholeness.

The rights of human persons, being and life emerge from a deeper layer of justice; and this layer reveals some authority granting rights by using its set of laws, precepts, stipulations or commands. Such authority and its laws have operated with relativism in human life, composing a fragmentary basis influenced and shaped by the human condition. Stated simply: While any rule of law may prevent anarchy, it does not guarantee function with justice and thus for justice. The basis on which rights are based commonly signifies further fragments of justice at best that are insufficient for how to see and think about rights and justice. The most common and encompassing fragment is social justice, which is an insufficient lens and inadequate mindset yet what prevails for justice. Social justice is a generic term that neither is whole nor unifies all aspects of justice. Moreover, the sum of all these fragments still doesn’t add up to the essential whole of justice necessary for human life in order to get right the human relational condition of the human order. The authority of the embodied Word, however, clarified and corrected this often subtle relativity from reductionism in order to get right the roots of justice at the heart of human life—which we cannot ignore or avoid to get right our own theology and practice.

Jesus summarized this clarification and correction in his Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5-7). For now, we will limit our discussion focused on the right of free speech. In his focus on God’s Rule of Law, he brings out the rights of justice and what is essential for its practice. He first clarifies the law against murder and this blatant abuse of human persons. Encompassed in this physical abuse, however, is also verbal abuse transmitted by speech, which discriminates against the integrity of others and/or abuses their dignity (Mt 5:21-22). So, for example, abortion kills persons but words do also. Does this apply to Christians voicing their opinions today? In the created justice of God’s authority and under its Rule of Law, persons are free to speak but do not have the right of speech that discriminates and abuses, which includes microaggression and passive-aggressiveness. Furthermore, Jesus also made unequivocal that persons who presume to have this right are accountable for overstating the law and will be prosecuted for violating God’s Rule of Law. The freedom of speech, and related freedom of religion, is always qualified by the roots of justice that cannot be relativized, or else the rule of law undergoes variable practice as witnessed in polarized conditions today.

As a further example of the relativism of the rule of law and its related rights, Jesus turns to the law of sexual misconduct (Mt 5:27-30). Relative interpretations of this law have opened the door either to ambiguity about misconduct or to complicity of such misconduct. Yet, what Jesus clarified is that few could be guiltless of sexual misconduct. Adultery, for example, is conducted both in the physical act and merely as a desire conducted in the mind, and both are consequential of sexual misconduct. This includes reducing persons to physical objects in our mind, which we are free to conduct but no one has the right to this misconduct or is guiltless in it. Critically then, the Word grounds the Rule of Law in the complete view of sin, which an incomplete (weak in understanding and application) view of sin allows for variable practice. Thus, if the Rule of Law were enforced on all those guilty of the true depth of sexual misconduct, who would remain without the burden of injustice (cf. Jn 8:3-7)? The roots of justice expose the relativity of those implicit in or complicit with any form of injustice.

With the irreducible and nonnegotiable authority of God, Jesus clarified and corrected any relative rule of law with the invariable Rule of God’s Law. At the heart of God’s authority is the wholeness of God, by which all human persons are constituted irreducibly from inner out and their relationships are composed in nonnegotiable primacy. Whole persons from inner out are complex subjects who cannot be reduced to simple objects from outer in. Objects simply function as those subject to and re-acting in their situations and circumstances, which reduce who is present and fragments what is involved in relationships—contrary to their inherent wholeness. Accordingly, the Word establishes this whole theological anthropology at the root of justice and makes it essential for the Rule of Law to unfold right.

Therefore, the wholeness of persons is central to the invariable Rule of God’s Law; and this wholeness must not be compromised, for example, by oaths that redefine a person’s integrity from inner out to outer in (Mt 5:33-37). The primacy of relationships in wholeness is at the root of justice, thus must not be engaged relative to situations and circumstances by giving them priority, or justice is reduced and the rule of law is relativized to a fragmentary practice of relationships (5:38-44). Social justice falls into this relativism because it is not composed by the roots of justice. The unavoidable consequence for all this relativism is to enable injustice and disable justice—the inescapable condition of reductionism at the fragmentary heart of the human relational condition.

In contrast and conflict with reductionism and its pervasive yet subtle relativism, the relational purpose and outcome of the Word’s definitive terms for justice are “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (5:48). That is, be complete, whole (teleios) in your persons and relationships, because anything less and any substitutes for justice and the Rule of Law fragment your person and relationships—a condition lacking justice and living in injustice. Accordingly, by his relational purpose and outcome the authority of the Word continues to integrate all rights into God’s Rule of Law, whereby they are rooted in the whole relational context and process of justice as created by its whole and uncommon Source.

The Word clarified and corrected that the transition to justice is whole, and only the wholeness of persons and relationships constitute the roots of justice and its invariable outcome for everyday life in uncommon peace.

Christians cannot presume to know the Word’s Law just because they are familiar with the Ten Commandments and how Jesus summarized them into two (Mt 22:37-40). Knowing this information doesn’t mean we understand the depth of the Word’s Rule of Law for our way of life and its human order (cf. Dt 8:1-5). Since God created all persons in the Trinity’s qualitative image and relational likeness, in order to go beneath the surface to the heart of God’s Law, the psalmist appeals for “understanding that I may learn your relational terms for life together” (Ps 119:73). He made no assumptions about “whose way is blameless [tamiym, whole] who walk in the relational terms of the LORD” (119:1). Like the psalmist, we need to go from the appearance and mere engagement of God’s Law to the depth of relational involvement of the Word’s Rule of Law; and this points us directly to the plumb line of righteousness (Ps 119:7,137,144).

True righteousness in likeness to the Trinity’s is indispensable for completing the wholeness of peace and having right the justice of the invariable rule of law from God’s authority. We can neither replace this righteousness with a variably new normal nor substitute for it with any form of self-determination, and then expect to discern any illusions of peace and justice. Righteousness is essential to distinguish the integrity of the whole who, what and how we are, by which others can count on to be whole from inner out and thus who will be right and bring wholeness to relationships. Without righteousness in his likeness this relational process doesn’t emerge and its relational outcome doesn’t unfold—only illusions and delusions of them, which Jesus dispels and exposes for the redemptive change necessary to be transformed from these ontological simulations.

Ongoingly, he challenges his followers to understand their roots from their theological anthropology and to know the basis for their everyday practice, so that they can be distinguished whole from any subtle new normal of reductionism. He faces his sentinels with this unavoidable reality:

The transition to justice is complete when it is made whole by the Subject’s salvation—the salvation composed just in relational terms for subjects in likeness to live right in the primacy of reciprocal relationship together in wholeness.

This is the critical junction at which theological anthropology and sin as reductionism converge. That is, our theological anthropology should be at disjunction with reductionism, but having the right theological anthropology depends on our view of sin. How we view sin defines what salvation encompasses, whereby our persons and relationships are determined. A truncated salvation does not save us from the depth of sin composed by its roots of reductionism, consequently this limited salvation does not make right our persons and relationships by saving us to wholeness. This consequence impacts the peace and justice of our everyday life, and it likely promotes a variably new normal for how we see and think about them.

Therefore, we are faced with this unavoidable reality: Justice is never whole without the full salvation that conjointly saves us from reductionism and saves us to wholeness. This reality interfaces with this inescapable reality: The roots of justice definitively emerge in creation, but because of the invasion of reductionism in human life (e.g. by intervening variables) to construct its human condition, justice unfolds only with this full salvation.

The irreplaceable key that unlocks the transition from reductionism to justice is Jesus’ gospel of peace. The gospel’s wholeness was enacted by his righteousness (they kiss) in order to constitute our righteousness in likeness to his. However, a new normal has pervaded theology and practice with an incomplete Christology and a truncated soteriology—notably composed by an interpretive lens of Scripture in referential language and terms (demonstrated by most evangelicals, as in Jn 5:39). Not surprisingly, this has left many persons in churches without the full satisfaction of true righteousness (the 4^th beatitude, Mt 5:6), and thus without its integrally connected peace in a condition lacking justice.

For those whose righteousness is in his likeness, their full satisfaction in the primary frees them from any self-concern (or self-autonomy) about the secondary or from the need to secure some benefit from their achievements (or self-determination). This freedom opens up opportunities for more vulnerable relational involvement, for example, to extend compassion to others in relational terms and not merely to do things for others (the 5^th beatitude for identity formation, 5:7). Most important, this freedom clears the person’s heart from the distraction of the secondary in order for the vulnerability of one’s full involvement to be in the primary of relationship together, foremost with God; these vulnerable persons are the blessed (fully satisfied) who “will see God” face to face and thereby intimately know each other (the 6^th beatitude, 5:8). It is from the primacy of intimate relationship together that persons are transformed into the new creation of God’s family, from which emerges the wholeness of persons and relationships—the relational outcome from the gospel of peace. Those claiming this wholeness are the persons completing the transition to justice—whose whole ontology and function distinguish them to be “the peacemakers of wholeness, for they will be known as the daughters and sons of God” (the 7^th beatitude, 5:9). This is the right and essential outcome of the whole identity of Jesus’ uncommon followers.

The transition to justice is incomplete without wholeness; and peace is inseparable from righteousness. Without the integrity of righteousness and its full satisfaction in his likeness, true righteousness cannot be distinguished from any assumed new normal. Accordingly, peace will not emerge and justice will not unfold. Thus, the plumb line of righteousness and measuring line of justice are constituted by the integral qualitative-relational terms of the Word’s Rule of Law. When this is relativized or exceptions are made in their application, then a variant rule of law is composed that makes incomplete the calculus for human life and renders inadequate the algorithm for the human relational condition.

In contrast to and in conflict with what is the common of human life and its human order, human life in the qualitative image and relational likeness of its Creator converges with its qualitative-relational human order only when they are integrated from inner out, the uncommon heart of which constitutes the qualitative-relational terms for relationship together to be whole.

Compromising the Word’s Rule of Law by conflating it with a variant rule of law has overtly and covertly evolved from the beginning under the assumption of “knowing good and evil” (Gen 3:5); this conflated rule of law has unfolded in simulations and illusions presumed to be good. This faulty assumption has adapted subtly into the prevailing thinking and pervasive perception of the common good. Most Christians and churches embrace the conventional wisdom and collective conscience of the common good. Yet, this directly involves a lacking measurement of the existential bad of the good news, and with likely good intentions includes balancing the bad with the good. Thus, our calculus for human life and algorithm for the human relational condition are misled by incomplete knowledge and misguided by insufficient understanding (contrary to Jer 9:24), which prevails in the Christian gospel used today and pervades the church’s mission.

What has adapted into the common good revolves on two basic issues critical to understanding the common good: (1) the state of what is called ‘common’, and (2) the composition of what is considered ‘good’. Any use of the term ‘the common good’ makes assumptions about these basic issues, and its application appears positive under the further assumption of having the appropriate outcome for all persons and peoples on the earth. These assumptions are rarely challenged, if at all,^{^[2]} but they are consequential for Christians in their claim to the good news of the gospel and in their related work for the common good.

The inaugural human persons were constituted in creation justice under the authority of God’s Rule of Law for its human order in wholeness. But, when they “saw that the alternative was good” to fulfill their common needs, desires and concerns, they chose the alternative to creation justice in wholeness; they made this choice subtly under the assumption that they would also “know good and evil like God” and thereby have the wisdom to act for their common good (Gen 3:5-6). These consequences followed:

These consequences have evolved subtly into the prevailing notion of the common good; and when its assumptions are not challenged, the common good adapts even more subtly to pervade Christian theology and practice with its common-ized and relativized shaping. As an extension from the primordial garden, this existing condition among us has fallen into the virtual realm composing the common good, having only assumptions to cling to.

Therefore, the reality facing us in applying the common good to human life is unavoidable:

The common good is not always good according to God’s eyes, whose lens distinguishes the reality of creation from the virtual and augmented realities of human shaping; nor does the common good routinely serve all human life in the inherent human need of all persons and peoples—at best serving only their permissible rights, which is insufficient to fulfill the inherent human need that requires vested and privileged rights.

This reality is the genius of reductionism, which generates illusions about “good and evil” and promotes misinformation, distorted facts and fake news about the utility of the common good. The purpose of reductionism is to counter wholeness—the wholeness of God and the wholeness of human persons created in likeness. The counter-workings of reductionism generate ontological simulations and epistemological illusions of human identity and function, which have become the default condition that subtly pervades our theology and practice. And reductionism’s most ingenious counteraction is the alternative of the common good, and seducing us with its appealing results or lingering hope.

Accordingly, when Christians hear the human-life buzzword ‘the common good’—even if only in their own thoughts and words—we must neither automatically affirm that it’s good, nor simply accept that it’s beneficial for humanity or even benefits just the majority of the human population. One example of the subtle influence of reductionism in the common good involves benefitting the majority of the human population, as in globalization. Sounds good so it seems unreasonable to discount it. But, on what basis can we say that this is good without assuming that the majority isn’t wrong, unjust or bad—which human history disproves and current global inequities expose? For the enforcement of God’s Rule of Law, God clearly instructed a different perspective: “You shall not side with the majority so as to pervert justice” (Ex 23:2). Others who advocate for the common good also emphasize giving the poor special attention or treatment. Yet, for the whole justice of God’s Rule of Law, “nor shall you be partial to the poor” (Ex 23:3, cf. Dt 1:17). With their apparent thinking about the common good, Jesus’ first disciples had yet to learn in their advanced discipleship what priority to be given to the poor, in contrast to what Jesus makes primary for all persons and relationships in his gospel (Mt 26:6-13). These examples evidence the influence of reductionism by common-izing how we think, see and act.

Therefore, until the basic assumptions about the common good are clarified and corrected, we need to exercise the valid means of a ‘hermeneutic of suspicion’ on any reference to the common good. In other words, we need to be engaged ongoingly in the fight against reductionism or this critical battle will subject us to the common’s influence composed by reductionism—notably shaping ontological simulations and epistemological illusions. Whether in a reduced theological anthropology or having a weak view of sin without encompassing reductionism, the shaping influence of reductionism will subtly pervade our theology and practice and prevent our whole transition to justice.

As a former reductionist with fragmented theology and practice, Paul knew how irreplaceable the fight against reductionism is for the integral fight for the good of the whole gospel. When he countered reductionism in the church and the fragmentary theology and practice preventing wholeness of persons and relationships in the church, Paul qualified Christian freedom: “All good things are permissible rights, but not all ‘good’ things are beneficial…not all ‘good’ things build up the whole. Do not seek your own good but the good of the other” (1 Cor 10:23-24). Paul, however, didn’t affirm the common good, instead he countered the assumption that it would build up the whole. By correcting the misguided assumptions extended from the primordial garden, Paul further clarified the issue for our theology in order for our practice to be right, or best, and not simply common-ly good: “I want you to be wise in what is truly good and clearly distinguished from what is unambiguously evil. In this fight the God of peace will crush Satan, the author of reductionism, under your whole-ly feet” (Rom 16:19-20).

In his defining fight against reductionism, Jesus wielded the sword of uncommon peace to unmistakably distinguish that he did not “come to bring peace to the earth for the common good” (Mt 10:34-36). His purpose is to break apart the simulation in existing bonds in relationships, to cause conflict in the conventional unions of human life, and thereby to tear down common illusions to expose the underlying reality of reduced persons and relationships without just-nection in the fragmentary human relational condition (Lk 12:49-53). Without the common thinking of civility and a fashionable notion of being irenic for the sake of the common good, Jesus strongly declared the bad news of the gospel. This is the uncomfortable part of his gospel that commonly gets revised by misinformed, distorted or fake news in order to reflect, reinforce and sustain the virtual and augmented reality of common peace (as in Jn 14:27). Jesus’ intense fight against reductionism—for example, enacted intensely against the reduction of persons and relationships in God’s house (Mk 11:15-17; Jn 2:14-17)—expressed the depth of his whole person from inner out, and thus caused him to weep over what others assumed to be of the common good, weeping because their common peace lacked wholeness for all human life and its essential order of all persons and relationships (Lk 19:41-42). And as Jesus made unequivocal, his uncommon peace remains indistinguishable for them from common peace because it is “hidden from your lens assumed under the common good.”

By relentlessly declaring the bad news of the gospel in his fight against reductionism, the Word exposed, clarified and corrected the assumptions of the common good. His declarations extended further and unfolded deeper integrally with the good news proclaiming the uncommon good distinguished by only the Word’s whole gospel. Yet, the uncommon good will be hidden from our lens also as long as we lack clarity about the common good and its common peace. This clarity will elude how we think, see and act (1) if we dismiss the uncommon good as a mere ideal without real significance, or (2) if we simply ignore its reality because the uncommon good involves more vulnerable change than we are willing to undergo for the integral heart of human life and/or to undertake to make whole the fragmentary heart of the human relational condition (including our condition).

Having clear distinction of the common has been an ongoing problem, because it has conflated with the uncommon rather than being calculated from the uncommon. This conflation certainly then makes problematic being set apart from the common as necessitated by the nature of being uncommon (holy) in likeness of the whole-ly Trinity (as Paul makes definitive, Eph 2:21; 4:24). However, when the uncommon is also clearly distinguished from the common—that is, the common calculated from the uncommon—then the good news of the uncommon will shine on the darkness of the common’s bad news. This deeply sharpens the focus necessary to recalculate the common from the basis of the uncommon, which then makes complete the calculus for human life and also makes fully sufficient the algorithm for the human relational condition. And both this calculus and algorithm directly point to and encompass the change necessary (1) for justice to rule and not be an exception, and (2) for peace to be the uncommon wholeness that the Word gives in contrast to the common peace given by humankind (Jn 14:27).

The existential inequality (alive unredacted) and evolving inequity (evident today even in health care) entrenching the human relational condition have consistently escaped immunity, because the measures used to change this condition have been incomplete and insufficient. These measures for change reflect an incomplete calculus for human life that lacks just-nection due to compromising the qualitative-relational integrity of both the inner-out human genome and the Word’s Rule of Law. The compromised latter is directly correlated to the compromised former by the rule of a phenotype. For example, two problems for implementing the Word’s Rule of Law are witnessed ongoingly in the following:

1. When the Law used is reduced of its integral qualitative-relational composition, thus making variant laws incomplete, insufficient or contrary for the inherent equality and innate equity of the created human order.

2. When the Rule used is reconfigured from its integral integrity for a variant rule shaped by rulers and their enforcement that skews, contradicts or is in conflict with even their variant law, which thereby renegotiates a variant rule of law to fit their terms and serve their interests.

This is witnessed today in many Christians who support Donald Trump because of the goals they pursue. But, they have exempted Trump from the Word’s Rule of Law, the exception of which demonstrates their truth and norm gymnastics to justify reaching their end-goal by the use of variant means. In other words, Christians and churches have become politicized; conversely, their theology and gospel are also politicized. Who and what were politicized first depends on how they evolved in the common. Being politicized is indicative of the reality of first being common-ized.

From the past to the present, such resulting rules of law reflect, reinforce and sustain the human relational condition in a diversity of reduced human orders, which are mutated as human life keeps evolving in the basically unchanged inequality and inequity of humankind. Without the change necessary to turn this human relational condition around, these variants keep recycling in one way or another, and will keep repeating the past until the algorithm for change itself is changed.

Change is usually implied in any conversation for the common good; and change is always an explicit or implicit goal for those calling for justice and working for peace. Change, however, in the uncommon good of the Word’s gospel is neither optional or temporary for human life, nor merely remedial for everyday life. The significance of change cannot be just a moment in time or involve just a movement of action. In the whole gospel, significant change is the transformation of life (and lives), which is constituted by the redemptive change of both the old (i.e. the reduced, fragmented, bad, wrong, unfair, unjust) being terminated and the new (i.e. the whole, good, right, fair, just) raised up for the experiential truth and reality of the heart of human life and its essential order for all persons and relationships. Anything less and any substitutes for redemptive change reduce such change to conventional change. At best, the significance of conventional change is (1) temporary for the human condition because it doesn’t get to its fragmentary heart, and (2) fleeting for everyday life because it doesn’t involve congruence with the heart of human life.

When Jesus’ gospel is not compartmentalized, the uncommon good of the non-compartmentalized gospel offers, involves and requires redemptive change of reduced ontology and function in all its variations and forms in everyday life and at all levels of human life (including institutional, systemic and structural). This redemptive change encompasses the ontological simulations and functional illusions that compose our default mode. When his disciples’ everyday practice made evident their reduced ontology and function centered on human distinctions from outer in (“the greatest,” Lk 9:46; 22:24), he told them the whole truth: “Unless you change from inner out like vulnerable children, you will never belong to my kingdom family” (Mt 18:3). His truth, however, was not about conventional change merely from the outer in; outer-in change is the metaschematizō that even Satan promotes (2 Cor 11:14-15). The truth of his gospel is the “turn-around change” (strepho) signifying the redemptive change of transformation from inner out (metamorphoo). Metamorphoo is the only change congruent with the whole gospel and thus the relational outcome constituting the uncommon good of Jesus’ gospel, which Paul, on the one hand, made conclusive (2 Cor 3:18; 5:17) and, on the other hand, made imperative as the ongoing change necessary in order to be distinguished from the common (Rom 12:2). And as Peter would testify about the good news, the uncommon good offers, involves and requires nothing less than redemptive change of reduced ontology and function, the condition he persisted in; and that no substitutes such as conventional change are sufficient or acceptable for redemptive change, such as Peter attempted until his transformation.

The need for change is basic to the human condition since the primordial garden. We all, then, need change, whether we seek, want or even recognize it; this need is innate to our human condition. More complex is the type of change required to meet this need. Since the beginning, however, the means for change utilized in the human context for changing the human condition have complicated both what is significant change and what brings significant change (e.g. the misguided tower of Babel, Gen 11:1-4). The whole gospel’s uncommon good clarifies and corrects what is needed for the human condition.

This is witnessed at the crucifixion by the two criminals crucified on each side of Jesus. They represent views that today would be considered views from the left or the right. Again in his concern for human equality and equity, Luke is the only Gospel to record this revealing interaction (Lk 23:39-43). One of the criminals kept insulting Jesus from his political-cultural bias, because he wanted conventional change, “Are you not the messiah? Save yourself and us” (v.39). But the other criminal rebuked his counterpart for disabling justice and enabling injustice, because he wanted the deeper change brought by Jesus that would turn him around in redemptive change (23:40-43). What view is from the left or the right is irrelevant here, since conventional change is the scope of change advocated by both the right and the left. The pivotal issue that the whole gospel illuminates is between conventional change and redemptive change; and what is illuminated clarifies and corrects the algorithm for change necessary to turn around the human relational condition.

First, the terms are clarified to avoid confusion or conflation of terms. Conventional change is common change, and redemptive change is uncommon change. That which is common is distinct to the human context, human life and its persons. Uncommon (or holy) distinguishes God and God’s relational context and process unique to God, which the embodied Word vulnerably enacted ongoingly. The common and the uncommon are mutually exclusive and thus should not be confused with each other. Moreover, the common and the uncommon are incompatible and therefore must not be conflated. Since conventional change is common change, the extent of this change does not and cannot exceed the common. While our desire for or pursuit of change may not go beyond the extent of conventional change, our hopes for change often exceed common change. Likewise, those working for justice and peace tend to pursue the limits of conventional change, while their hopes and expectations usually exceed common change—notably true for Christians. It is problematic for those needing, wanting or working for change either to not understand or to ignore the extent of that change; and it is disappointing, frustrating, angering or depressing when their hopes and expectations for change are not fulfilled. But, this process reflects how conventional change gets confused with redemptive change, and, more importantly, how uncommon change is conflated with common change to mislead those needing and wanting change as well as to misguide those seeking and working for change.

Jesus clarifies for us what is axiomatic (Mk 4:24): The change we use will be the extent of change we get. When his axiomatic clarification is listened to (Mk 4:24), then his correction can be received.

Conventional change may serve and does indeed work for the common good. The common good, however, cannot be confused with the uncommon good and must not be conflated with what the Word’s gospel distinguishes only as the uncommon good. What he brings (as in Mt 10:34) and what he gives (as in Jn 14:27) are only uncommon and thus exclusive to the whole of God and God’s relational context and process. The unique nature of what Jesus brings is irreducible in the human context and by human life and its persons; and the uniqueness of what he gives is nonnegotiable to all human terms. In other words, the uncommon good is unmistakably distinguished from the common good and must never be confused or conflated with it. This critical clarification and correction were initiated by God in Babylonia, where God deconstructed the tower of Babel for the corrective purpose to expose the false hope of a common good and to dispel the illusion of its expected outcome from common change (Gen 11:5-9). God’s purpose wasn’t only to clarify and correct but also to prepare the way for the uncommon good to be received; and further integrated in God’s purpose, to enact the uncommon change necessary for this relational outcome to be whole and uncommon (whole-ly) as the experiential truth and relational reality in human life and its order for all persons and relationships.

The tower of Babel predates the hopeful change that has evolved in two prime examples of recent history. One example counters what Jesus brings and the other example contradicts what Jesus gives, both of which compete with uncommon change and its uncommon good. The first prime example has a conflict approach to change, which could be confused with the sword Jesus brought and his approach to culture and politics. This is the Marxist ideology and its Hegelian dialectic (thesis-antithesis-synthesis), which socialism-communism has implemented under the assumption that it will result in the synthesis for the greater good of the people. On the one hand, a conflict approach to change is warranted because significant change requires the old to be terminated for the new to emerge—which is the unequivocal purpose of Jesus’ sword and his counter approach to culture and politics. On the other hand, a Marxist-Hegelian dialectic does not merit affirmation of the means used for its end to bring about a synthesis. Its common thinking, explicitly or implicitly, is that the end justifies the use of its means, even if the means are wrong or unjust.

The systemic use of power relations to enforce change formally breaks just-nection and officially legitimizes its injustice. This common thinking about “good and evil” relativizes what is right, and thereby promotes, reinforces and/or sustains the disabling of justice while enabling injustice. Therefore, the conflict approach to change of Marxist ideology (and all its variations) cannot be confused with the sword of uncommon change that Jesus brings:

The common’s conflict approach to change works variably to disable justice and to enable injustice, while the uncommon’s redemptive change serves invariably for the just-nection of all persons and relationships in wholeness; the former works under the assumption of serving the common good, while the latter serves only the reality of the uncommon good and thus works for the only good that distinguishes justice by the Word’s whole gospel the whole non-compartmentalized gospel.

The verdict on the Marxist-Hegelian dialectic has not been concluded because the jury on socialist-communist history is still in session. But, the synthesis for a new human order has had no indications of being nothing more than a false hope—not only in falling short of utopian expectations but with its dystopian consequences. Nevertheless, the anticipated victory for this hoped-for result has not stopped many from continuing to pursue this common change, likely in the absence of real hope for significant change. Variations of a conflict approach have adapted into many forms of protest (political, social, economic, religious, and the like) that have been aggressive (in both macro- and micro-aggression) and thus violent (even implicitly as Jesus defined in God’s Rule of Law, Mt 5:21-22). Even knowingly in their common thinking, their approach to change has adopted the principle of the end justifies the use of its means. These varying conflict approaches to change—which includes the adaptation of the Marxist dialectic in liberation theology—are still simply common change that should not be confused with the uncommon change Jesus brings.

At the same time, this is not to say that the approach to change should be nonviolent. What does need to be said, however, is that when viewed through the lens of uncommon terms, the approach of nonviolence is an oversimplified notion of change, as difficult as this approach is to embrace and enact. Such change is unable to deal with the existing depth of the old even though it may address and confront the old, thus it merely acts as common change working for the common good. Consider this sensitive example, which various persons could have misgivings accepting. Though Martin Luther King’s nonviolent approach to change eventually included the global injustice of the Vietnam War, it never encompassed the sexism within the Civil Rights Movement to change the gender inequality existing among themselves—notably those proclaiming and working for the common good. In other words, change became selective and likely protective for those who didn’t want to be vulnerable from inner out.

This makes evident the fact that Christians who advocate for nonviolent change distort what Jesus brings with his sword, either by common-ly idealizing it or by simply ignoring it. The consequence has been that the redemptive change needed, for example, to clean out God’s house has been absent, which has left the relational orphans populating churches without just-nection—leaving the church in the simulation of its practice and the illusion of its relationships together. This relational condition is not the uncommon good that Jesus’ non-compartmentalized gospel brings. The sword of Jesus signifies the intensity (not the violence) with which the battle against reductionism (the full scope of sin) must be fought. Thus, Jesus’ sword is the relational extension of God’s wrath in the OT. Contrary to common perception and thinking about God’s wrath, this intensity expressed the heart of God’s grief in relational response to the scope of sin as reductionism, which reduced persons and relationships from their wholeness created in the image and likeness of the Trinity. The heart of God’s grief first responded intensely to this reductionism with the flood, and only because of Noah’s wholeness (tamiym) was he saved from God’s intense battle against reductionism (Gen 6:1-9).

God’s wrath and Jesus’ sword express the heart of the Trinity’s grief (as in Lk 13:34; 19:41-42) in the relational response necessary to bring the uncommon change for transforming the human condition and its fragmentary relational order. Therefore, the unavoidable reality facing Christian leaders and activists is this: The old is not eliminated without directly countering it intensely, and this conflict does not terminate without Jesus’ sword of uncommon change for only the uncommon good. Accordingly, even nonviolent approaches to change should not be confused with the uncommon change required for the uncommon good of the Word’s whole gospel (not our variants of the gospel).

All the above approaches signify common change, which in one conventional way or another disable justice and enable injustice by reinforcing and sustaining the reduced ontology and function of the human condition. Moreover, any form of power relations at any level becomes an enabler of injustice and a disabler of justice (cf. Lk 22:24-26). Whether intentionally or inadvertently, these approaches counter what Jesus brings. The redemptive change brought by Jesus is the only good news to integrally lead to the whole and uncommon relational outcome for human ontology and function, and this whole-ly relational outcome is the uncommon good that Jesus gives.

Next, contradicting the uncommon good that Jesus gives is the second prime example in recent history: globalization, as it has evolved from colonialism and been adapted from the Enlightenment. Countering the uncommon good brought by Jesus and contradicting this reality that he gave are not mutually exclusive but interrelated in critical ways. They are both problematic in their underlying reductionism that promotes and generates results different from the Word’s whole gospel. Yet, it is one issue for conflict approaches to counter what Jesus brings by using a misleading or misguided hope, and a deeper, more complicated issue to contradict the uncommon good he gives by using a false hope.

Analogous to the global effort by Babylonia to “build ourselves a global community” (Gen 11:4), political globalization evolved in human history to “make a name for ourselves.” The construction of this “name for ourselves” required (1) competing with the kingdom of God to rule the world, and (2) imposing its rule over others under the dominance of its sovereignty. This global process formed the dynamic of colonialism (or imperialism), which has been the prime political example that has disabled justice and enabled injustice—a dynamic generated often by the myth of the common good. As a subtle extension of the Roman Empire, Constantine (in the 4^th century) justified this dynamic with a false hope of building Christendom; and the U.S. has intensified the colonial dynamic by common thinking that amplifies the myth of Manifest Destiny and/or the false hope of democratic ideology—both illusions having justified the enabling of injustice that contradicts the uncommon good given by Jesus. Many Christians in the U.S.—notably those supporting nationalism and promoting exceptionalism—would either disagree with this assessment or feel very uncomfortable accepting it. But, then, they have to answer to the type of change they advocate and be accountable for its effects on their own lives, the church, this nation and the world. And the change they use and get from it have to be measured by the uncommon change for the uncommon good of the non-compartmentalized gospel that Jesus brings and gives.

From political globalization has evolved economic globalization. The modern development of the economy distinctly adapted from the Enlightenment (around the 18^th century), which promoted two movements for so-called human progress:

1. The reliance on rationalized thinking to supposedly enlighten human perception and action, which, on the one hand, would challenge human development beyond tradition but, on the other hand, would compete with the uncommon change that Jesus brings by substituting a secular worldview (secularism) to contradict the uncommon good Jesus gives.

2. The emergence of modern science, which challenged traditional beliefs and the limits of their conclusions (e.g. the order of the universe) to both (a) justify secularism for human development and (b) prioritize the development of technology for human progress—the primacy of which has pervaded modern life and preoccupies (even dominates) persons over the primacy of relationships together.

By adapting in this evolutionary process, the economy underwent pivotal change with the Industrial Revolution (starting from the late 18^th century) and has since progressed (i.e. evolved) as energized by the natural (common) selection of the economy’s fittest components to survive. The economy’s survival of the fittest generates the economic colonialism necessary to empower the progress of the global economy, even over the objections of tribes and nations. Like political globalization, of course, this defining dynamic of economic globalization also contradicts the uncommon good that Jesus gives.^{^[3]}

Economic globalization, however, doesn’t survive by colonialism alone. The survival of its fittest has a much more subtle basis. Earlier, Jesus alerted his followers to what contradicts what he gives (the scope of Mt 6:19-32). What he defined is the mentality and lifestyle of consumers. Consumerism drives the common everyday life and practice that fuels economic growth; and the subtle the-more-the-better mentality and the explicit lifestyle of greed intensify consumer drive to reduce persons to mere objects manipulated and forged by economic promotion (as Paul alluded to, Eph 2:3). Economic globalization survives only by the consumption of its common goods, which it multiplies by creating the subtle need for convenience and efficiency. These human-shaped needs consume consumers—even at the expense of fulfilling their inherent human need basic to all persons—which economic globalization has now substituted as the prevailing source for the good life. Moreover, discordant clouds have formed over the expanding scenario of the global economy, which darkens its optimistic basis (1) on the misguided assumption that the earth’s natural resources can support unlimited economic growth, and (2) on the misleading assumption that all human labor benefits from capitalist development.

Therefore, Christians need to awaken to the consuming reality enveloping our everyday life. The priority given to consumption, plus the pursuit of convenience and the search for efficiency, all reinforce and sustain economic globalization, and thereby also enable the injustice of its colonial practices and disable the justice needed for the care of all creation. Since we are all consumers in one way or another, wanting convenience and desiring efficiency to some extent, the priority we give to these even if not excessive will determine whether or not we also contradict the uncommon good Jesus gives—as well as also counter the uncommon change he brings.

Given these two prime examples of hopeful change and related variations of them on the personal or collective level, we are always faced with the significance of the change we use. This change is especially important for the goal of those calling for justice and working for peace. Significant change, however, is neither just a moment in time nor involving just a movement of action. How we think, see and act regarding change have to be challenged ongoingly by the distinction between common-conventional change and uncommon-redemptive change. All the issues about change converge in the vital difference between metaschematizō (outer-in change) and metamorphoo (inner-out change), as distinguished by Paul; and this critical distinction between the outer in and inner out cannot be confused with each other or conflated together, because they signify the incompatibility of human identity and function in either reduced terms or whole terms. The former involves common change and nothing more, and the latter involves uncommon change and nothing less.

It should be evident in how we think, see and act that the type of change is crucial for the outcome desired, hoped for and expected. The self-evident reality is:

The change we use will be the extent of change and related outcome we get—which either at best serves only a common good variably defined, or at the least works for the uncommon good of all persons and relationships in wholeness.

Metamorphoo distinguishes the uncommon change necessary by its nature (not by duty or obligation) for the whole (not partial or fragmentary) relational outcome of the uncommon good that Jesus brings and gives (as in 2 Cor 3:18). Only inner-out change unequivocally distinguishes the uncommon from the common (as in Rom 12:2), and thereby constitutes the uncommon-redemptive change of the whole gospel (as in 2 Cor 5:16-17)—which common-conventional change is unable to bring and give, yet may try to simulate (as reductionism does, 2 Cor 11:13-15) or create illusions about (as Peter attempted, Gal 2:11-14).

The uncommon good of the whole gospel that Jesus brings and gives emerges by the redemptive change of the who, what and how persons are from inner out (the plumb line of their righteousness), and it unfolds with the wholeness of their righteousness in likeness of God’s. This relational outcome of wholeness is the primacy defining the full identity of those in God’s kingdom-family and that determines their primary relational involvement with the whole of who, what and how God is—as the Word makes conclusive in contrast and conflict with the common (Mt 6:33). Anything less and any substitutes of who, what and how persons are reflect, reinforce and sustain the reduced ontology and function that both counters what Jesus brings and contradicts what he gives. Those reductionists are in need of redemptive change in order to be involved in and belong to relationally the uncommon good of his whole gospel of uncommon peace—as the Word clearly distinguished for the who, what and how his true followers are in wholeness (Mt 5:6,9,20). This plumb line is irreducible and nonnegotiable.

The calculus for human life and the algorithm for the human relational condition in use are consequential unavoidably for either turning around human inequality and inequity or recycling them to continue to repeat the bad’s past. Those used by Christians and churches are notably consequential for God’s whole picture. In today’s polarized climate, the calculus and algorithm used by a majority of Christians and churches has been consequential of repeating the bad’s past, whether willfully by design or willingly by default. Their witness leaves many observers (especially younger generations) wondering or confused about the gospel they claim and proclaim as good news. This has compounded the existing crisis, because the definitive hope for fixing this human crisis is obscured or even lost for many needing, wanting and seeking resolution. Many of these experience what is illustrated in a “Prickly City” comic strip. The two main characters who are best friends, the conservative Carmen and the liberal Winslow, have been undergoing dismay and conflict over the current political crisis in the U.S. Carmen confesses to him, “I am having a profound crisis of faith, Winslow.” He replies, “You mean with…” as he points his finger to heaven. She clarifies, “No, I mean here,” as she grasps her chest. He responds, “Oh, that’s too bad.” Carmen then states, “I know because” as Winslow interjects with dismay, “There’s a book to help with the guy up there, but I don’t think there’s a book about fixing what’s in there….”[4]

So, “Where are you?” in the Word’s whole gospel, and “What are you doing here?” with this gospel’s bad news, so that its good news will bring Light to human fog and darkness? Indeed, where today is the relational outcome of the whole gospel?

In the strategic trajectory of the whole gospel, the embodied Word vulnerably revealed his whole person in direct face-to-face interaction with a marginalized person (Jn 4:4-42). This interaction was strategic for the Word’s gospel, because it also illuminated both the gospel’s bad news and the relational outcome of its good news. Strategic to his gospel, the Word countered and neutralized this marginalized person’s racial-gender inequality and its inequity both culturally and politically. These issues were not a sidebar to the strategic revelation of the Good News but integral for the whole gospel. As such, the gospel proclaimed by the Word was clearly distinguished as uncommon from the surrounding cultural-political context of the common—distinguished unequivocally uncommon as it countered and neutralized the common’s consequences. Thus, the Word’s uncommon good in this interaction bewildered his disciples, who “were astonished that he was speaking with a woman” (4:27).

The fact that his disciples were so surprised should not be surprising. Human inequality and inequity were not of central focus in the common cultural-political lens. In the reality of their distinction-based identity and function to be the greatest, the disciples—along with many likeminded Christians today—actually reinforced and sustained human inequality in human life and human inequity in the human relational condition because of an incomplete calculus and insufficient algorithm. Consequently, the strategic trajectory of the Word’s gospel unfolding right before their eyes simply eluded their biased lens. The critical relational consequence for them was the lack of just-nection inherent to the whole gospel, which left them at an ongoing relational distance with the Word. The reality of relational distance is the relational condition of (1) not being vulnerably involved directly with the Word to know his whole person (Jn 14:9), and (2) not able to experience the relational outcome of his gospel (Jn 17:26).

This common relational consequence was further demonstrated by the disciples, which will intensely illuminate the whole gospel’s calculus and algorithm that are intrinsic to its relational outcome being fully claimed and rightly proclaimed by us today. At another pivotal interaction, the tactical trajectory of the Word’s gospel unfolded, and this further distinguished what was good in the uncommon from what was merely the common good. In order to deepen her initial relational involvement of discipleship directly with the Word—which neutralized the existing cultural-political human inequality (as Luke recorded in his concern for equality, Lk 10:38-42)—now Mary relationally responds deeply in intimate connection with the Word as never before (Jn 12:1-8; Mt 26:6-13). The Word was unfolding in the bad news in order that the good news be fulfilled. Mary’s vulnerable relational action by implication also countered what prevailed culturally and politically, which was her profound statement that the Word highlighted: “I tell you the truth, where this gospel is preached throughout the world, the relational outcome she has enacted will also be told, in memory of her” (Mt 26:13).

Her profound statement was not only lost on the disciples but countered by them for the sake of the common good to help the poor. Perhaps with good intentions, their reaction to Mary demonstrated the tension between the insufficient algorithm of the common good and the complete calculus of the whole gospel’s uncommon good. The poor are certainly central in the issue of human inequality and inequity, with the high rate of poverty in the economically rich U.S. being the prime example. Yet, the algorithm for this condition will never be sufficient until it includes what is primary for the human relational condition. Thus, the rich could be very poor, though obviously not for economic reasons, because of what is primary for human life as created in the qualitative image and relational likeness of the Trinity: the whole person from inner out directly involved in relationships together of wholeness—nothing less from outer in and no substitutes from the quantitative. The primacy of the whole person equalized in intimate relationships together is the qualitative wholeness of the relational outcome in the Word’s gospel. This is the who and the what Mary enacted in her statement that the good news of uncommon good makes complete and sufficient in the algorithm for the human relational condition.

The strategic and tactical trajectories enacted by the embodied Word constitute the whole gospel, whose qualitative-relational roots cannot evolve to form variants of the gospel as witnessed today. In the Word’s uncommon good, the significance of change is always relational, and redemptive change only transforms in the primacy of relationship. Thus, significant change always encompasses, involves and changes relationships, which unmistakably contrasts with common-conventional change. Any change that is not so engaged relationally falls short and, therefore, is insufficient to bring the complete change and give the whole outcome that transforms relationships in their primacy. Uncommon change is irreplaceable to bring the complete change necessary for mature justice and to give the whole outcome constituting peace as wholeness. Anything less and any substitutes, even with good intentions, at best result in premature justice and immature peace.

Accordingly, and invariably, when we call for justice, we have to know what indeed brings justice; and when we work for peace, we have to understand what truly gives peace.

The uncommon change of the uncommon good emerged distinguished in relational terms when God responded face to face with his kingdom-family by the relational involvement of his definitive blessing (Num 6:22-27). “The whole of God make his face to shine upon you…and give you peace” is the most common blessing in our tradition, whose use has lost its relational significance and has either ignored or not understood the essential significant change at the heart of whole-ly God’s relational response. By “give you” (siym), God is not acting as a mere benefactor, nor is it merely highlighting God’s good character to give. The deeper meaning of siym used in God’s response centers on the heart of what whole-ly God brings and gives: (1) to bring about a change, and integral to this change (2) to establish a new relationship. Thus, the Subject’s face-to-face response to subjects (not objects of his blessing) is to bring the significant change that establishes them in new relationships. The relational outcome is not a “new normal” but gives them the new order of relationships together in shalom—that is, their well-being in wholeness to constitute their just-nection as subjects in the whole-ly God’s whole and uncommon family. The measuring line of justice is irreducible and nonnegotiable.

Sadly, those associated with God’s kingdom-family turned God’s definitive blessing into a “new” normal by first transposing the uncommon change God brings to common change, and then by common-izing the uncommon peace God gives (cf. Isa 29:13). The pervasive consequence was to convert God’s uncommon good into a prevailing common good. This conversion continues today, subtly shaping how we see and think about the gospel to counter the uncommon change Jesus brings and to contradict the uncommon wholeness he gives. The Word had to clarify and correct this conversion throughout his embodied presence in order to expose the common-ization of what he brings and gives.

Along with the early disciples, the majority associated with God’s family functioned in common peace to counter the siym of whole-ly God’s relational response, and thereby contradicted the shalom he gives (Lk 19:41-42). As evident in his post-ascension critique of churches (Rev 2-3), the palpable Word (together with the Spirit) continues to pursue us in any distorting conversion of the uncommon change he brings and the uncommon peace he gives. His relational purpose is always for the just-nection of all persons and relationships in the uncommon good. Furthermore, his ceaseless purpose in this vital process pursues us, so that any call for justice will not stop prematurely until just-nection is complete, and that all work for peace will not be engaged immaturely without wholeness and settle for common peace. Jesus knew all too well from his personal observations that common thinking, perception and action result in anything less than their maturity until they undergo uncommon change.

In the ordinary terms of the gospel, the sword of uncommon peace that Jesus brings and gives would seem to contradict peace and to function counter to it. That would only be true for our theology and valid in our practice when the focus is reduced to common peace. The truth of the Word’s whole gospel, however, that invalidates other gospels using his name is this: Whenever common peace is used in place of uncommon peace, there is a contradiction of what Jesus gives; and whenever our work revolves around common peace, it functions counter to the uncommon peace that Jesus’ sword brings.

The uncommon good of Jesus’ whole gospel unfolds in his discipleship manifesto for all his followers (the Sermon on the Mount, Mt 5-7), emerging with their definitive identity formation (the Beatitudes, 5:3-10). Their identity as “peacemakers” is not merely a partial identity but their whole identity as the “children of God” (5:9). Yet, only those who are relationally involved with God with their whole persons from inner out in reality relationally belong in God’s family (5:8), which emerges from only the uncommon-redemptive change of the who, what and how they are (5:3-6). Therefore, in Jesus’ uncommon good, the uncommon change of peacemakers involves only whole persons who work just for uncommon peace. These daughters and sons in God’s family know that anything less is an immature account of their whole identity, and that any substitutes are an immature peace of the whole who, what and how they are and function (for the righteousness of 5:6). Immature peace and uncommon peace are at the critical disjuncture composed between “the wide gate and easy road” and “the narrow gate and difficult road” (7:13-14). This disjuncture continues to create both fog for his followers’ theology and ambiguity confounding their practice, such that they stop prematurely without just-nection in their call for justice, and engage the work of peace immaturely without wholeness by settling for common peace. This describes the who, what and how of persons prevailing among those associated with God’s kingdom, whose reduced identity and function composed the religious status quo that Jesus required his true followers to go further and be deeper than, without stopping short in their righteousness (5:20).

Reductionism is always imposing its “knowing good and evil” on those functioning merely as objects shaped by the human context in reduced ontology. These are the sentinels (Eze 33:7-9) who all too easily claim premature justice and who all too widely profess immature peace—taking a wider trajectory and easier path than the Word (cf. Eze 34). Yet, this bad news is redeemed and transformed by the good news: the uncommon good that Jesus brings with uncommon change and gives with uncommon peace. If we are willing to turn around from the assumptions in our theology and change the bias in our practice, then our just-nection can be completed to counter premature justice rather than countering what Jesus brings; and then our persons and relationships can be made whole to contradict immature peace instead of contradicting what Jesus gives. The common-good workings of reductionism always seeks to convert the uncommon good, so that premature justice will subtly pervade everyday life to enable injustice, and that immature peace will prevail over human life to disable justice and prevent just-nection.

Once again, the uncommon good Jesus brings and gives faces us with this persistent reality:

How we see and think about change will be the change we use, which will be the change we get…which will be the justice and peace we use, which will be the justice and peace we get—all of which will compose either the common good or the uncommon good…that we get as outer-in persons or experience as inner-out persons, who serve as mere servants or work for as whole persons in the Trinity’s likeness.

The common good is composed by reduced ontology and function that lacks just-nection regardless of the amount of premature justice and immature peace generated; this is the consequence of a reduced theological anthropology and weak view of sin. In contrast and conflict, the uncommon good is constituted by whole ontology and function in the right relational order for the just-nection of all persons and peoples in whole justice and uncommon peace. The relational outcome of the Word’s whole gospel brings and gives nothing less and no substitutes.

To know what indeed brings justice and to understand what truly gives peace converge in the integrating dynamic of just-nection that Jesus brings and gives. As the conclusive extension of the definitive blessing of whole-ly God’s face (2 Cor 4:6), the Word’s gospel embodies the primacy of God to enact the primacy of face-to-face relationship for the persons primary to God. The right order of relationship together, which was created by the Subject only for subjects in his likeness, is the whole-ly relational outcome of just-nection. God’s justice is distinguished whole and God’s peace is experienced uncommon by the integration just in the relational dynamic of just-nection. Jesus redeems, reconciles and transforms the relational connection required for justice of the human order in the integrally created and newly created whole-ly likeness of God (summarized by Paul in 2 Cor 3:18; 5:16-17; Col 3:10-11). Therefore, just-nection is the unequivocal and irreplaceable antithesis that distinguishes justice from the common denominator of injustice (discussed in Chap 4):

That which encompasses the common’s prevailing relational distance, separation or brokenness that fragment the human order and reduce persons to any and all relational disconnection contrary to their created likeness to the Trinity; this is consequential for relegating persons to relational orphans, the relational condition that disables them to function in their vested and privileged rights, and thereby prevents fulfillment of their inherent human need, whereby their everyday function subtly enables injustice—reinforcing and sustaining injustice even as they exercise their permissible rights.

The obscured reality, verified by existing facts, is this: Without just-nection persons fall into this equation of injustice. Contrary to any misinformed, distorted or fake news, this inescapable reality composes the human relational condition that pervades the existing human order with relational orphans—pervading even the church, countering and contradicting the Word’s gospel (Jn 14:18). Premature justice does not bring just-nection and immature peace does not give wholeness; and their premature and immature fruits expose the roots of the tree they come from (as in Mt 7:15-20). Moreover, while such prevailing premature justice and pervasive immature peace may serve the relative notion of the common good, they do not, will not and cannot work for the uncommon good of the Word’s gospel. What works in the whole gospel only brings justice by uncommon change and gives peace through uncommon peace. As a further qualifier, what Jesus brings and gives do not preclude the diversity exercised in efforts for justice and peace but rather are against the reductionism expressed in their lack of maturity. Thus, the uncommon good of the Word’s whole gospel should not be confused with a common metanarrative that postmodernism opposes; nor should the Word’s uncommon good be conflated with the grand narrative proposed by modernism, which has been adapted into traditional theology and the practice of the status quo—the evolving narratives of variant calculuses for human life and algorithms for the human relational condition.

The uncommon good Jesus brings and gives distinguishes only the uncommon, so that it is irreducibly incongruent with the common and, therefore, is nonnegotiably incompatible with anything common. Even a partial hybrid in theology or practice are indigestible for the uncommon’s integrity—as the church in Thyatira was corrected by the Word’s critique (Rev 2:19-23). For the sentinels of human life to function in premature justice is to be misguided in their calling and to have misguided results. For the shepherds of God’s family to function with immature peace is to be misled in their purpose and to mislead others for the outcome. This immaturity creates a crisis of credibility about what sentinels and shepherds do bring and give, which continues to evolve among Christian leadership today. In the Word’s perception and thinking, this existing condition is encompassed in the bad news of his gospel, which apparently has not been received to clearly distinguish whole-ly in much theology and practice today. But, not surprisingly, nothing more than the common (change, peace, good) can result and should be expected whenever what Jesus brings is countered and what he gives is contradicted.

Therefore, make no mistake, the calculus for human life and the algorithm for the human relational condition that we use in our gospel is the relational outcome we get, nothing more but perhaps less. Does your algorithm resolve the bad news of the human relational condition? And does your calculus fully constitute the good news in human life?

The Word summarized what’s the qualitative-relational primary to God over all the secondary in human life, and thus the only relational outcome of significance: “Do not boast in the outer-in distinctions of what you have and do; but let those who boast boast in this, that they understand and know me, that I am the LORD; I act with the relational involvement of love, justice, and righteousness in all of human life, for in these relational actions I delight” (Jer 9:24). The whole-ly Trinity’s delight is the relational responsibility of those who claim the gospel’s relational outcome to be equalized and made whole in the primacy of relationship together in the Word’s family. We are accountable in this boast alone. With the Word’s plumb line of righteousness and the measuring line of justice, nothing less than human equality and human equity are at stake here; and in this there can be no substitutes in order that the created qualitative-relational integrity of human life and its human order be restored to wholeness—the uncommon whole in the image and likeness of the whole-ly Trinity.

Certainly then, anything less formed by a reduced theological anthropology compromises righteousness and thereby reinforces and sustains human inequality. Likewise, any substitutes taken from a weak view of sin compromises justice and thereby reinforces and sustains human inequity. Whenever and wherever anything less and any substitutes exist, the experiential truth of the whole gospel and the relational reality of its whole-ly relational outcome are reduced in a fog to a mere propositional truth and to merely a virtual reality at best. Because of such a distorted lens used for the gospel’s calculus and algorithm, Luke recorded—again, in his concern for human equality and equity—the Word’s relational imperative: “Therefore, consider deeply [skopeo] whether the light in you is not darkness” (Lk 11:35).

[1] By Wiley, Los Angeles Times, January 10, 2021.

[2] Two examples by Christians, who center on the common good but don’t address assumptions about it, are: Jim Wallis, The (Un)Common Good: How the Gospel Brings Hope to a World Divided (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2014), and Miroslav Volf and Ryan McAnnally-Linz, Public Faith in Action: How to Think Carefully, Engage Wisely, and Vote with Integrity (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2016).

[3] Further discussion on globalization, aimed at the global church, is engaged openly by Vinoth Ramachandra, Subverting Global Myths: Theology and the Public Issues Shaping Our World (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008).

[4] By Scott Stantis, Los Angeles Times, February 4, 2021.