Ch 7 Summoning Essential Workers

The public life of political theology is always directly involved in the existential. Currently, the COVID-19 pandemic has dominated our existence. During this condition, essential workers have come to the forefront to help us deal with it at various levels of life. Two kind of workers have been designated as essential: (1) those who sustain our physical health, and (2) those who sustain our lifestyle. The latter has increasingly been brought to the forefront by the intolerance of disrupted lifestyles, which for some appear to cause more strain and pain than their physical condition. Who is essential and what they are essential for are critical issues to sort out in public life.

Underlying the COVID-19 pandemic, and more encompassing of human life, is the pandemic of the human condition, whose existential relational condition is endemic throughout human life and prevails in all variants of the human order. The strain and pain on humankind caused by this pandemic, however, has not brought to the forefront the essential workers for our whole well-being, though there are workers who sustain our various ways of life during this all-encompassing pandemic. Therefore, all Christians and churches have a reckoning alert in this pandemic to distinguish who is essential and what they are essential for in their Christian and church life, as well as in their public life.

The Summons Unfolds

It’s a given, of course, that everyone needs physical health to survive in any pandemic. However, since no part of humanity is less fit than another, then no segment of humankind needs to survive as the fittest. Survival of the fittest is the evolutionary alternative to creation, in which the human person made the reductionist transposition from the qualitative inner out to the quantitative outer in, whereby all persons have become shrouded in outer-in distinctions that keep their relationships veiled in relational distance. This syndrome has devolved throughout human life to compose its inequality and the inequity of the human order. This has mutated God’s creation constituting the inner-out human genome in the qualitative image and relational likeness of the Trinity, thereby reducing it to the fragmentary human relational condition composing the pandemic entrenched in all of humanity and constraining every segment of humankind. In this existential reality, who becomes essential in the full depth of humanity and what are they essential for in the complete breadth of humankind?

The identity of these essential workers is distinguished and their function unfolds from the summons by the Word in indicative relational terms to determine its predictive purpose. This summons from the Word is recorded only in John’s Gospel, whose design was to illuminate the Word’s whole picture. The Word’s summons antecedes his Great Commission, yet his summons unfolded after his resurrection integrally to make his commission contingent on it and thereby to validate his witnesses.

The resurrection is definitive for the Word’s summons to be indicative of who are essential workers and predictive of what they are essential for. On the experiential truth and relational reality of his resurrection, the Word’s new creation is constituted to transform (1) persons from outer in to be restored to wholeness from inner out, and also (2) their relationally-distant relationships composing inequality and inequity to be equalized in intimate relationships together without outer-in distinctions, which constitutes whole persons belonging together in the Word’s new creation family—no longer “to be apart” but whole together only in the qualitative image and relational likeness of the Trinity. Therefore, in the existential reality of the new creation, the Word summons essential workers made whole in integral equalized and intimate relationships together during a pivotal post-resurrection interaction (Jn 21:15-17).

It may seem obvious that Peter was an essential worker who would witness for the Word. Yet, given his vacillating discipleship recorded up to then, on what basis could we make such an assumption? This is crucial to understand both for Peter and ourselves, because the Word makes no such assumptions about persons in his summons. Thus, in the Word’s indicative relational terms, he wants to distinguish the existential new creation in each person summoned, which Peter was only in the process of claiming yet unmistakably in the midst of. The Word’s inquiry is indicative of the relational progression for the new creation:

“Love” in common terms focuses primarily on doing something positive for others. For the new creation, love is the depth of direct relational involvement with the other, which is uncommon to human relationships but primary for the new creation—“Do you love me more than the secondary?” What’s uncommon about love in the new creation is that (1) it connects directly with the other person to be intimately involved with their whole person not defined by outer-in distinctions—“do you love my whole person?”—which (2) requires our whole person to be vulnerable from inner out in order for intimate connection to be openly involved face to face, person to person with the other’s whole person, without the veil of outer-in distinctions keeping them at a relational distance—“do you love me with your whole person?”

The Word’s summons takes persons through this relational progression in order for their new creation to be ongoingly distinguished. This may make some uncomfortable or anxious who aren’t yet in the primary relational condition of the new creation (as Peter demonstrated). As persons are involved in this relational progression, the new creation is distinguished to identify them as essential workers for the pandemic of the human relational condition. At this indicative juncture definitive of the new creation, the Word’s summons for essential workers determines their predictive purpose in his qualitative-relational imperative: (1) “nurture my family in the new creation of transformed relationships together integrally equalized and intimate,” and (2) “cultivate my new creation family in the pandemic of the human relational condition in order to counter human inequality and neutralize human inequity with the redemptive change necessary for the uncommon good of the whole gospel’s relational outcome,” which integrates all the existential bad news into its qualitative-relational good news. Essential workers, therefore, fulfill their purpose as witnesses of the Word’s whole non-compartmentalized gospel to make new creation members of all persons, peoples, tribes and nations—with nothing less and no substitutes defining their identity and determining their function as essential.

Does the Word summon you as his essential worker?

The Summons’ Dissonance

It is likely that the Word’s summons has been overlooked because it is obscured by the Great Commission. Every Christian probably knows about the Great Commission, though few know the full significance of “make disciples” (Mt 28:19-20). Thus, how Christians “go” and churches “make disciples” has mainly focused on evangelism, that is, proclaiming a compartmentalized gospel. The Word made axiomatic, however, that the gospel we claim will be the gospel we proclaim, nothing more (Mk 4:24). This directs us back to examining how carefully we listen to the Word (cf. Lk 8:18). The Word’s summons is readily overlooked because it has dissonant sounds that are difficult to listen to, and thus would not resound for Christians and churches. His summons’ dissonance makes it easier to ignore and not listen attentively to with the depth of response from our person. What, then, are its discordant terms that make his summons have such dissonance for Christians and churches, including many who affirm his Great Commission?

Peter, that is, the new creation Peter, illuminated the fundamental issue underlying the dynamic between dissonance and consonance, which he was now able to do from his personal experience of redemptive change and transformation. Peter made imperative (1 Pet 1:14-16) for Christians and churches not to conform from outer in to the common surrounding us (syschematizo, as in Rom 12:2), because “as he who summons you is uncommon, be uncommon yourselves in all your identity and function.” Here now is the tension causing dissonance and the conflict with consonance: the uncommon instead of the common for defining our identity and determining our function with nothing less, and the uncommon prevailing over any substitutes from the common. Peter could make this imperative, because only the uncommon constitutes the new creation that distinguishes the persons summoned by the Word for his essential workers.

Therefore, examine carefully the dissonant terms of the Word’s summons that are uncommon to what’s common:

● “Do you love me more than the secondary?”—First, he defines love as the depth of relational involvement with the other person(s) and not what is done for the other; then he determines the primacy of this depth of relationship together as primary over all the secondary in everyday life, not necessarily at their exclusion but always as a lower priority to the primacy of relationship together.

● “do you love my whole person?”—The Word makes a crucial distinction between his teachings, actions and resources—all of which have a basis to follow and thus love (contrary to the discipleship of Jn 12:26)—and his whole person. The former revolves on outer-in distinctions defining persons by what they have and do, which then creates a barrier with that person to maintain relational distance or reinforce inequality in the relationship; but the latter distinction centers on the person from inner out, making all such outer-in distinctions secondary or irrelevant, and thus removing that veil causing a relational barrier in order for deeper relational connection.

● “do you love me with your whole person?”—Certainly, by clarifying and correcting any outer-in distinctions imposed on his person, the Word also clarifies and corrects any outer-in distinctions that define the identity and determine the function of those he summons with his plumb line of righteousness. In other words, likely the most dissonant of his terms, those persons are not and cannot be relationally involved in the depth of love with him unless they have experienced redemptive change from the old of outer in and been transformed to the new from inner out. This whole person from inner out can only be the new creation, defined by nothing less and determined by no substitutes. Thus, relationships together in the depth of love person to person are vulnerable relationships from inner out, and anything less and any substitutes from the person keep that person from being vulnerable from inner out, which is evident of a veil present from an outer-in distinction (as evolved from the beginning, Gen 3:7).

Accordingly without reduction or negotiation, the persons in the Word’s summons can only be the new creation, who are clearly distinguished as uncommon from what’s common in the surrounding contexts of everyday life. When their public identity and function are distinguished uncommon, they qualify to be the essential workers for the Word’s new creation family. If persons work for the Great Commission but don’t qualify to be the Word’s essential workers, their work still doesn’t fulfill the uncommon purpose his summons has for them. At best, like Peter’s initial work in the early church, they function in roles behind the veil of outer-in distinctions (the hypokrisis exposed in Gal 2:11-14). Even with good intentions, this work reinforces and sustains inequality and inequity in the church (as in Acts 6:1; 10:15; 15:5-9; 1 Cor 1:10-13; 4:6-7), which counters rather than fulfills the new relational order of the Word’s whole gospel that constitutes the body of Christ in the integral equalized-intimate relationships together of his new creation church family. Nothing less and no substitutes determine the uncommon existential purpose for essential workers in the Word’s summons.

● “nurture my family”—Nurture (poimaino) is another term that could easily become dissonant in the Word’s summons, because what’s consonant for many Christians and churches in how they define it has been common-ized; that is, nurture commonly encompasses the intervening factors in the surrounding environment that shape, for example, a phenotype or the existing norm. Given the above indicative terms, what’s primary and only secondary for the Word?; what’s the difference between building church and growing family?; and how is the new creation family distinguished from what’s common in churches and in the surrounding environment?. “Nurture my family” is neither negotiable nor optional, and anything less and any substitutes for the new creation are no longer “my family”. As a key leader in the early church, Peter didn’t understand what distinguishes the Word’s church, thus he practiced what was common until he turned around and was transformed to the new creation. Therefore, what truly “nurtures my family” is constituted (1) by persons intimately involved in the above relational progression with the Word in the new creation, who then become essential workers (2) for the uncommon purpose to nurture, cultivate and grow the new relational order of integrally equalized-intimate relationships necessary to become and be “my new creation church family,” as well as procreate “my new creation family” among all persons, peoples, tribes and nations to counter human inequality and neutralize human inequity—the Word’s measuring line of justice.

Thus, the Word’s summons qualifies the relational purpose of his Great Commission, and further makes his witnesses contingent on being his summons’ essential workers. This also makes being his followers contingent on the above relationship progression of discipleship, whereby the relational purpose of all his workers is contingent on his summons’ uncommon purpose defined and determined integrally by his new creation family—with nothing less and no substitutes in the gospel they claim and proclaim. Accordingly by necessity, the Word’s summons qualifies and makes contingent both the nature of evangelism and what’s involved to “make disciples.”

So, are you an essential worker?

His Summons’ Exclusive Inclusiveness

The identity of essential workers as the new creation is irreducible and their function is nonnegotiable. This makes the Word’s summons exclusive for only these essential workers. The primacy of their identity and function is not subject to common variants in the environment shaped, for example, by culture and politics. Yet, these persons in the new order of relationship together don’t conform to a homogeneous unit and structure. The new creation church family operates as the organic body of Christ (Eph 1:22-23), in which each part of the body serves a different function according to their primary function in equalized-intimate relationships together of wholeness in the Trinity’s likeness (1 Cor 12 :12-27; Eph 4:11-13). Therefore, based on the exclusive summons of the new creation, the Word is completely inclusive in summoning all who belong to his new creation church family to be his essential workers, without exception. No one, regardless of the part they serve in the body of Christ, is excluded from his summons.

The inclusiveness of the Word’s summons can create further dissonance because of its uncommon nature qualifying who is an essential worker to “nurture, cultivate and grow my new creation family”—not only in the local church but globally for all persons, peoples, tribes and nations. Even children and the childlike can qualify as essential workers (as in Mt 18:1-4; 21:15-16). This inclusiveness counters any inequality in the church and makes essential any and every part of the body of Christ for the equalized identity and function of the new creation church family. Thus, you must not eliminate your person as an essential worker just because of what gift you have (or don’t) and can do (or can’t).

Since there is no herd immunity for the pandemic of the human relational condition, common workers are simply incomplete and common measures are always insufficient to turn around this prevailing condition endemic in the human order—good intentions and the common good notwithstanding. Without reduction or negotiation, therefore, the Word summons uncommon essential workers in intimate relationship of wholeness together in order to join him in healing the relational condition, first of churches and then of its human order throughout human life—urgently bringing to the forefront these whole-ly essential workers. This summons thereby brings together the uncommon relational outcome of the Word’s whole non-compartmentalized gospel and leads to the completion of the Word’s whole big picture.

In this political theology, however, those defining their identity and determining their function by a reduced theological anthropology and a weak view of sin without reductionism, they need not respond to the Word’s summons because they cannot qualify as his essential workers in penultimate witness. So, “where are you?” in the Word’s summons, and “what are you doing here?” for it both in the whole gospel and in what’s next for you and your church in the whole picture?