Listen, you leaders of God’s people! 

Should you not know, understand and enact justice?

Micah 3:1

 

You must not distort justice; you must not show partiality….

Justice and only justice you shall pursue, so that you may live whole and uncommon.

Deuteronomy 16:19-20

 

 

            When Christians, locally and globally, talk about the human condition, there are diverse viewpoints expressed, which may or may not be included in their proclamation of the gospel.  The human condition envelops the full spectrum of human activity that is determined by the innate condition of humanity composed inclusively by its diversity.  To what extent the news of the gospel addresses this human condition will determine the bias, naiveté or integrity of proclaiming the gospel.  Christians are urgently faced with this issue in the theology and practice of their faith.

            In the diversity of the global church, variable practice is the rule, even when there could be uniformity in theology.  What’s most common in these global contexts is the lack of being distinguished uncommon.  This condition is also true for Christians in the U.S., notably among evangelicals.  What is most consequential from and in our condition is the gospel we claim and proclaim.

            Given the existential reality of the pervasive problem of distinguishing the uncommon from the common in our everyday life, it is critical that the tension and conflict between them be an open, ongoing and discomforting issue that confronts us for resolve. Hopefully, our further discussion will magnify this issue in our theology and amplify it in our practice.

            Jesus’ post-ascension critique of the majority of early churches (Rev 2-3) made apparent this defining reality:

 

Churches and ministries have their own agendas that are prioritized in their theology and practice, the existence of which composes the diversity of the global church.

 

However important those agendas might be, when Christians pursue their agendas at the expense (minor or major) of the whole picture (not just the big picture), they fall into giving their agenda priority over the primary constituted by God’s whole picture. Christian agendas are a disguised problem of immeasurable consequences, because they fragment God’s whole, subtly by compartmentalizing it, thus by their human shaping (even inadvertently). This all reflects, reinforces or sustains common thinking, perception and action. As Jesus exposed in the churches, our agendas identify the gospel we use and further indicate our underlying theological anthropology and view of sin.

            Therefore, at this point in our journey, we must face with basic areas of our faith since recurring issues necessitate that we ongoingly assess how we think, perceive and act. This ongoing process needs to be engaged with the relational involvement in triangulation with the Trinity and others in everyday life, while in reciprocating contextualization between God’s relational context and our surrounding human contexts. In this relational process, we need to keenly assess basic matters with Jesus’ axiomatic paradigm (Mk 4:24):

 

• The gospel we use or emphasize will be the agendas we get.

• Given our agendas unfolding from the gospel we use, that gospel first emerges from the measure of our theological anthropology, which is composed from our view of sin.

• Thus, the measure of sin we use is the theological anthropology we get.

• The theological anthropology we use will determine the measure of the gospel we get.

• Then, the gospel we use will determine the agendas we get, live by and serve.

 

The right (as in best) conclusions for these basic matters are indispensable for the call to justice and are irreplaceable for the work of peace. And these conclusions, therefore, are nonnegotiable to the premature justice and immature peace existing among Christian diversity.

 

 

Convenient or Inconvenient

 

 

            With the evolving development of modern technology and the emergence of AI, the line between reality and augmented or virtual reality (e.g. human generated images) has become so blurred that it is often difficult to discern the truth from misinformation or fake representation of the truth. The latter represents an acceptable norm in postmodernist thinking, while the former represents the bad assumption in modernist thinking that has not recognized (or acknowledged) its own bias in shaping the truth. This distinct line is also concurrently blurred in relation to the gospel.

            For example, more and more Christians appear to be embracing conspiracy theories instead of fact-checking for the truth.  Why?  These Christians mirror the common thinking and perception of those in the general population propagating conspiracy theories.  Such scenarios have become more convenient in surrounding contexts than the inconvenience of truth.  But even more convenient is the sense of meaning and belonging provided for those who hold these convictions collectively in a notion of community, however virtual that may be.  Recent surveys point to the underlying human needs that conspiracy theory adopters have, which are a greater priority for them than the truth.[1]  This reflects the human condition that determines the common in surrounding contexts, the shaping influence of which has permeated Christian practice, if not its theology.

            The common’s influence has led Christians to proclaim Christian nationalism for the U.S., whereby their human needs to be valued and to belong have subtly also shaped their thinking and perception of what composes the good news without the bad news: focused on “…given to us…and there shall be endless peace for his kingdom-nation, the U.S.A.” (Isa 9:6-7).  Proclaiming such a gospel evolves from a bias or naiveté about the bad news that skews the good news for the sake of convenience.  Even the protests generated by Christian nationalism conveniently overlook the extent of the bad news about the U.S, condition.  And always underlying this process are the human needs of those proclaiming—notably the needs of white Christians who tacitly define the nationalism movement as white nationalism.[2]

            Our view (picture or even video) of the gospel can be either partial or complete, either distorted or lucid, either virtual or real. Portions of that picture could be either-or, but to have the whole picture we cannot include any elements of both-and. That makes God’s whole picture distinguished from any of our portrayals, and the tension and conflict between them needs to be magnified in our theology and amplified in our practice.  This will certainly be an inconvenient process challenging our convenience.  But, then, the Truth embodied by Jesus will always be inconvenient (as the gospel truth in Isa 9:6-7).

            There are three pivotal issues that bring out the main composition of any picture of the gospel:

 

1. Who and what is the person created by God, and how are persons to function in their created human order, which constitutes their likeness to God? This issue is essential to understand the persons with whom God was involved in the beginning, and is vital for composing the theological anthropology at the heart of human life—the lack of which alters the picture of the gospel accordingly.
    

2. What changed who, what and how that person was, and thereby fragmented the human order between persons and reduced their likeness to God? This issue is pivotal to understand the sin that encompasses the breadth and depth of the human condition, and is critical for having the view of sin that gets to the fragmentary heart of the human condition—the shallow view of which composes theological anthropology accordingly.
    

3. How did the whole-ly God respond to this human condition, and what is the nature of God’s response? This issue is fundamental to understand who, what and how God is, and is definitive for embracing this whole-ly God’s gospel from the beginning—the reduction of which opens the gate wide, accordingly, to a diversity of agendas.

 

God’s whole picture is never complete until these interrelated issues are fully understood. And the key to this full understanding is the 2^nd issue and our working view of sin in everyday life.

            As composed by reductionism from the beginning, the human condition is in ongoing tension and conflict with God the creator and ruler of all life. In this overt and covert battle, God is routinely rendered (a) nonexistent in ontology/being (as in atheism), or (b) irrelevant in ontology and function (as in scientism), or (c) detached or removed in function (as in deism). With the reduction of God, the human order and its essential justice from creation are reconstructed, revised or simply ignored. Certainly, Christians don’t define their theology by (a) or (b), though in their practice they may live daily as if (b) were true. Less obvious, however, most Christians do practice (c) in one way or another, as if to live in a virtual reality. The subtle function of (c) is a functional substitute for God’s likeness and thus displaces the function of God’s creation justice with the human shaping of “good and evil”; and it is this distortion that has evolved from the primordial garden to entrench human life in this human condition. Without understanding reductionism, a shallow and weak view of sin has pervaded our theology and practice, and relegated the gospel to diverse portrayals, with a lack of redemptive significance for the breadth and depth of the human condition and no transforming significance for the wholeness of persons and relationships.

 

 

 

His Inconvenient Gospel

 

 

            As we turn to what’s inconvenient in Jesus’ gospel, we have to always be aware of our own human needs and thereby factor our needs (such as having meaning, being valued and belonging) into any proclamation.  Who, what and how we proclaim are always subjected to our needs and not just subject to the needs of those receiving our proclamation.

            Very few Christians consider protesting the bad news of the human condition as part of evangelism, though Christian nationalists might assume that their protests are evangelistic instead of political.  Regardless, that begs the question for evangelistic efforts then, why do you proclaim the good news?  This challenges our theology, including questioning our defining culture and/or subculture, supporting our practice of proclaiming the gospel.  Why so necessary now?  Because we need to be changed (redeemed and transformed) from the biased or naive notion of the good news not being interconnected with the bad news constituted in Jesus’ gospel. 

            The traditional proclamation of the gospel (euangelion) has revolved around the conventional practice of evangelism (euangelizo). The evangelism practiced, however, depends on the gospel used, which tradition has limited to a truncated soteriology of mainly being saved from sin—a shallow or weak view of sin lacking reductionism. This tradition of evangelism has been challenged not so much in its theological limits but to supplement its practice with social action. That is, many have called for a response to the various needs in the human context in addition to proclaiming salvation, with varying priorities given to each practice. A major consequence from this challenge has been the emergence of a false dichotomy in our theology and practice between evangelism and social action. Supporters of both sides have engaged in “holy debate,” and any conclusions that have evolved have only compounded the underlying problem and deepened the consequence.

            It is critical for us to move beyond the misleading and misguided dichotomy between evangelism and social action. For the most part, both sides in this “holy debate” presume to speak for God—as in the “holy debate” about theories of human order—and thus push their agenda. Their biased agenda, however, fails to get to the heart of Jesus’ gospel and, consequently, to the heart of human life and the human condition. Therefore, the hard reality and inconvenient truth is that both sides don’t fully claim and proclaim Jesus’ gospel of just-nection essential for our creation and salvation. With this underlying problem, any attempt in this “holy debate” to reconcile reduced sides or to synthesize fragmented positions neither resolves the problem nor composes the whole picture of Jesus’ 3-D gospel (discussed in Chap. 4). Rather this well-intentioned effort only constructs a hybrid of fragmentary parts that do not add up to the whole. This whole outcome requires that how we think, see and act go beyond these limits and constraints, and get to the depth of his gospel and thereby down to the heart of whole-ly God.

            The inconvenient truth for the leaders of God’s people is that they are accountable to know, understand and enact justice (Mic 3:1).  This reality means that God’s people “must not distort justice…must not show partiality,” and that “justice and only justice you shall pursue” for our life purpose, meaning, value and related human needs, “so that you may live whole and uncommon” (Dt 16:19-20).  This truth remains inconvenient more than ever today, especially for those with a bias or naiveté in proclaiming the gospel.

            In the 3-D gospel integrally embodied and enacted by Jesus, “he will proclaim justice…until he brings justice to victory” (Mt 12:18,20); “there shall be endless peace for…his kingdom-family. He will establish and uphold it with justice and with righteousness from the present through the future” (Isa 9:6-7). How does this unfold for our theology to be congruent with his gospel and for our practice to be compatible with who and what he embodied and how he enacted the 3-D gospel?

            The whole gospel emerged in the beginning with the Word and unfolded from the beginning in God’s whole response to what evolved from the primordial garden. The gospel centers on salvation (including redemption and deliverance), but unlike other portrayals of the gospel, this salvation is constituted only in relational terms and defined as follows:

 

    Salvation is the shorthand relational term that integrates the whole relational response of uncommon grace from the Trinity to the inescapable human condition, in order to fulfill this relational purpose and outcome:
 

1.     To redeem persons and relationships from the reductionism prevailing over 

      them that has violated the created justice of human ontology and function 

      and broken their just-nection.
 

2.     To bring the uncommon redemptive change necessary to transform this

      human condition to restore persons and relationships to their whole ontology

      and function created in the qualitative image and relational likeness of the

      whole-ly Trinity.
 

3.     To restore persons and reconcile relationships to the created wholeness of life

      and its essential order, the relational process of which must by its

      constituting nature involve the justice composed by God for human life to be

      whole.
 

4.     To raise up the new creation of the whole-ly Trinity’s family for all persons,

      peoples, tribes and nations to relationally belong both equalized without

      distinctions and intimately in uncommon peace.

 

            Salvation, then, in Jesus’ 3-D gospel is the distinguished relational dynamic that encompasses the whole theological anthropology from creation and its reduction as the depth of sin. The relational dynamic of salvation also embraces the existing human condition that disables justice and enables injustice at all levels of human life. Since salvation brings uncommon redemptive change to the human condition of reductionism, salvation is not, will not and cannot be claimed if just-nection is not the new relational order and if persons are not distinguished in everyday life by the image and likeness of God’s ontology and function. That is, with the 3-D view of sin as reductionism, no one is saved from sin as long as reductionism shapes persons and relationships together. Therefore, in Jesus’ 3-D gospel, by the necessity of sin as reductionism, salvation both saves from reductionism and saves to wholeness; no one is saved from reductionism alone because only wholeness emerges when reductionism is removed. If wholeness doesn’t emerge, reductionism still remains and any saving from so-called sin doesn’t encompass reductionism.

            Salvation from and to are inseparable and integrate the relational response, purpose and outcome that Jesus fulfilled in proclaiming his gospel. Anything less and any substitutes neither claim nor proclaim this 3-D gospel, but rather fall into a default mode with a gospel on a different theological trajectory and an agenda on a different relational path than who, what and how Jesus enacted.

            Default salvation is a justice-less salvation that centers on saving from sin that either doesn’t include sin as reductionism or doesn’t include saving to wholeness. In Jesus’ 3-D gospel, justice is not merely the fruit of salvation but it is salvation. Those pursuing the social action agenda over evangelism engage in whole-less justice and thus fall into default social action, likely motivated by default love. In his gospel, this default mode does not “bring justice to victory” as Jesus proclaimed (Mt 12:20). Accordingly, evangelism revolving around justice-less salvation falls into default evangelism. Like default social action and love, this default mode neither encompasses the good news of what Jesus brings nor embraces what he gives, and thus neither claims the depth underlying his Great Commission nor proclaims the extent of it. Therefore, in their default modes of justice-less salvation and whole-less justice, both sides fail to restore the vested and privileged rights from creation justice that all persons require to fulfill their inherent human need for their everyday well-being. In so doing by not doing, both sides counter what Jesus brings and contradict what he gives.

            Since salvation is justice in Jesus’ gospel, Christians cannot be satisfied with the lack of justice or settle for any type of justice. For example, merely working within permissible rights, around them, or for changing them is inadequate, and it distorts the whole 3-D picture of his gospel. We are accountable for the justice by which God created all life and saved it with the wholeness of the new creation. Anything less and any substitutes of God’s justice are not what we are saved to be and called to share with others, as inconvenient as that may be.  Therefore, the integrity of proclaiming Jesus’ whole gospel integrates protesting the bad news of the human condition, so that his good news will be the relational outcome of his inconvenient gospel.

 

 

Belonging Together in Face to Face Justice

 

 

            Proclaiming the gospel assumes that the gospel has been claimed first. Yet, what has been claimed cannot be assumed in the proclaiming of Jesus’ gospel. Proclaiming his 3-D gospel is based on claiming what Jesus brings and gives. What Jesus brings and gives, however, also cannot be assumed in the claiming. Jesus’ definitive paradigm (Mk 4:24) outlines this irrevocable equation for us:

 

• The measure used for what Jesus brings and gives is the measure of what we   can claim.

 

• The measure of what we then have claimed is the measure of what we can, will and do proclaim.

 

This determinative equation unfolds in our practice from what emerges in our theology.

            Peter struggled with what he claimed because the measure he used for Jesus was common.  His common measure then determined what he proclaimed, which Paul protested face to face for the justice of the gospel inconvenient for Peter (Gal 2:11-14).  When Peter was turned around by redemptive change (what Jesus gives, 1 Pet 1:3), he was able to distinguish the uncommon from the common and thus proclaim the integrity of what Jesus brings and gives (1 Pet 1:13-16).  With the help of Paul’s teaching (2 Pet 3:14-16), Peter clearly distinguished the uncommon identity of God’s people belonging together in the primacy of face-to-face reciprocal relationship together as God’s whole-ly family (1 Pet 2:9-10).

            When God’s definitive blessing initially enacted the gospel, an essential change (siym) was put into motion that reconstituted relationship in the wholeness of shalom (Num 6:26).  In Jesus’ intense protest cleaning out the temple for its redemptive change, he established the relational context for all nations, tribes and peoples to connect equitably in this wholeness of relationship together.  This relational outcome extended the siym and shalom of God’s definitive blessing.  But, Jesus gives more!  As he finished his defining protest on the cross, “the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom” (Mk 15:38).  This opened direct access to holy God for uncommon intimate relationship together face to face, not just to pray, but for ongoing reciprocal relationship together heart to heart “as I have loved you.”  With the veil over hearts and between persons in relationships removed, Jesus completed the siym initiated for shalom to transform persons for their just-nection in likeness of the Trinity (as Paul summarized, 2 Cor 3:16-18).

            The human need to belong goes unfulfilled today perhaps more widely than ever.  This need underlies what has become a prevailing human condition: loneliness.  The subtlety of loneliness is not always recognized in human contexts where human contacts and associations exist (as on the internet).  But, the loneliness experienced is an existential reality, which has become a health problem for a growing number of students.  This relational condition underlies surrounding cultures, even among Christians in church culture.[3]

            While Jesus was alone on the cross, he didn’t experience loneliness because of belonging together in the whole of God, the Trinity.  In spite of the mystery of his lament (Mt 27:46), their relationship together in wholeness was never broken, fragmented or rendered to distance between their persons.  Jesus extended  the likeness of their whole relationship together to his mother Mary and his closest disciple John (Jn 19:25-27, discussed earlier).  In a totally unexpected just-nection from redemptive change, the relational outcome of what Jesus brought and gave unfolds in his gospel’s culture as they would grow deeper in their new identity and function. By embracing each other in their new identity and function, his gospel’s culture unfolds in two essential ways that are nonnegotiable for distinguishing this culture as inseparably whole and uncommon. Based only on the gospel of what Jesus brings and gives, the two ways emerge:

 

1. Their new identity is not defined by the reduction of their person to merely an individual, but rather their persons are whole just in the primacy of relationships together as his family in likeness of the Trinity. Any individualism counters what he brings and contradicts what he gives.
    

2. Therefore, their new function is determined neither by individualism nor by their biological family, which is an uncommon change from existing function but indispensable to be distinguished from the common. In his gospel’s culture, the biological family is always secondary (not unimportant) to the primacy of his family—persons together as one in likeness of the Trinity, who relationally belong by their ongoing relational response and involvement of whole-ly faith (cf. Mt 12:48-52).

 

            These two ways are indispensable to define the identity and determine the function of persons growing in what Jesus brings and gives, and thereby irreplaceable for unfolding his gospel’s culture. Anything less and any substitutes—which are typical in Christian cultures—no longer distinguish such a culture as whole and uncommon. The resulting ambiguity, conflict or contradiction in our theology and practice must be resolved, in order to be compatible with the theological trajectory of what Jesus alone brings and congruent with the relational path of what he gives without less or substitutes.

            The whole-ly culture of Jesus’ gospel unfolds in our midst when (1) it integrates persons and relationships in the wholeness of his new creation family (not our versions of church), (2) it encompasses the breadth and depth of the human condition in all its reductionism, and (3) it embraces all of human life and its diverse human order at all existing levels of the human context and its surrounding creation. The whole person from inner out functioning in the primacy of relationship together is at the heart of whole-ly culture—persons reflecting the heart of the Trinity—whereby this distinguished culture unfolds with those persons relationally involved to bring uncommon change in order to give uncommon peace. This vulnerable function goes beyond merely engaging in Christian ethics conforming to a moral code of justice,^[4] and it goes deeper than default love such as peacemaking with common peace for the common good (e.g. as in being irenic). How so? Because this distinguished function exercises Jesus’ sword of uncommon change for the sake of creation justice to be enforced for the vested and privileged rights of all persons, in order to have their inherent human need fulfilled in the just-nection of uncommon peace. Christian culture becomes ambiguous, if not a contradiction, with anything less and any substitutes.

            More than a counter-culture, the whole-ly culture of Jesus’ gospel is always unequivocally anti-reductionism for this ongoing purpose: to bring uncommon change to human life and to redeem, heal, reconcile and transform the human relational condition in order to give it the uncommon wholeness that distinguishes the collective identity and function of persons belonging to Jesus’ culture. If the Christian culture in our midst operates with anything less and any substitutes, it does not operate with whole-ly faith but some reduction or fragmentation of it. Furthermore, such Christian culture does not unfold the whole-ly culture from Jesus’ gospel, but in the reality of its theology (not its theory) and its practice (not its ideal), this culture has been influenced by reductionism and common-ized accordingly, such that it counters the uncommon Jesus brings and contradicts the whole he gives. Sadly, these cultures proclaim a different gospel because they have claimed a different gospel from Jesus’. As Paul experienced with churches in his day, he would continue to express about our pervasive conditions today: “I am astonished that you are turning to a different gospel—not that there is another gospel” (Gal 1:6-7).

            When the gospel we claim and proclaim is not the whole-ly gospel embodied and enacted by Jesus, we fall into the default modes of discipleship that practice justice-less salvation and whole-less justice. This disjunction pervades Christian culture and the global church’s mission to render our identity and function to an ambiguous condition challenging our faith (as Jesus does, Mt 5:13-16).

            The creation justice Jesus proclaims to “bring justice to victory in the new creation” (Mt 12:18-21) can only be claimed by persons without the veil, in order to make face-to-face relational connection with the intimate presence of the Trinity. The integral theological truth and thus relational reality are that the Trinity’s presence and involvement were made vulnerable to us for this face-to-face relational connection when Jesus tore down the curtain—the truth for our theology and the reality for our practice needing to distinguish what we claim and proclaim. This face-to-face relational connection without the veil of human distinctions gives hope to all persons, peoples, tribes and nations to claim the uncommon Jesus brings and the wholeness he gives. Their hope fades when those who proclaim the gospel do not engage the face-to-face relational dynamic of Jesus’ gospel necessary to have the relational involvement to make relational connection with them. In any such proclamation, the face-to-face relational connection is not distinguished for them to claim the just-nection Jesus brings and gives, and whatever they may claim would only be a different gospel.

            The reality keeps surfacing that how we live (individually and collectively) proclaims the gospel we have claimed; and this reality reflects both the image of God we bear and the God of our image. What Jesus proclaims is face-to-face justice, and he brings justice to victory only in the primacy of face-to-face relationship together to constitute persons and relationships in wholeness—the uncommon wholeness in likeness of the Trinity. The face-to-face likeness of the Trinity, therefore, is essential for defining our identity and determining our function.  But it is critical to understand that this face-to-face relationship is neither unilateral nor relegated to a hierarchy.  Rather, relationship together is ongoingly reciprocal between persons who have been equalized without distinctions in face-to-face justice.

            We reflect this likeness of the Trinity by the ongoing vulnerable relational involvement (also known as love) of our whole person in the primacy of face-to-face reciprocal relationship. Consider then that any call to justice without face to face could only be incomplete and not bring the change for the just-nection of others. Consider further that any work for peace without face to face could only be fragmentary and not give the relational response and involvement of love for the relational connection that others need for their wholeness. Such a call is made on behalf of premature justice, and such a work is made for the sake of immature peace.

            With creation justice, God didn’t merely create life in what is right, as if to be lived within the limits and constraints of a mere moral-ethical code of justice. God created life in what is best, to which a mere moral-ethical code of justice is in contrast, and often in conflict with ever since. God’s justice is the superlative, and anything less and any substitutes compose simply comparative injustice. The spectrum of injustice, which includes benign injustice, encompasses every consequence resulting from any lack of God’s justice (consider Lev 19:15; Jas 2:1-10). The human struggle for justice centers on improving its comparative state of injustice, and addressing benign injustice is often not part of that struggle. Christian practice that is focused on what is right over what is best, also converges with the human struggle that conflates the superlative of God’s justice with the comparative of injustice. This conflation of the superlative with the comparative is evident notably when Christians ignore or don’t address benign injustice. In creation justice, the Trinity created human life with the superlative of just-nection for persons to be whole from inner out (without outer-in distinctions) in the primacy of face-to-face reciprocal relationship together in the Trinity’s likeness—that is, only in what is best.

            In the human relational condition among God’s people, the psalmist cried out to his God for justice; that God would respond and “decree justice” by “your rule over them” (Ps 7:6-7, NIV). To rule (yashab) means to sit, dwell in their midst, not merely as a judge (cf. NRSV) but for the relational purpose and outcome of covenant relationship together distinguished in wholeness (the tamiym of Gen 17:1). In other words, this is the primacy of intimate involvement (as in Dt 7:7-9) in the relational response by God to bring peace to his people face to face (fulfilling God’s definitive blessing, Num 6:24-26). This face-to-face justice is the sole gospel that Jesus embodied and enacted whole-ly. Therefore, the uncommon change he brings, even with his sword, and the uncommon peace he gives both emerge, unfold, grow and mature exclusively face to face. This primacy is irreducible from what is best and is nonnegotiable by merely what is right, even if it serves the common good.

            The primacy of face to face is how the justice of Jesus’ gospel is proclaimed with protest; and this primacy leads justice to victory face to face in the relational response and involvement of the Trinity’s new creation family. Just as “decaying creation waits with eager longing for the relational response and involvement of the Trinity’s family” (Rom 8:19-21), all human life and its human relational condition long for the redemptive change that the face-to-face relational response and involvement this new creation family brings and gives whole-ly. When our persons come together face to face without the veil, we make the relational connection necessary for our just-nection to belong together in the Trinity’s new creation family. As the uncommon that Jesus brings and gives is claimed face to face, we are distinguished whole-ly to proclaim his gospel face to face just as Jesus did—to call for superlative justice face to face and to work for the peace of new relationship together in wholeness face to face as “my witnesses.”

            This primacy of face-to-face reciprocal relationship together is how God created all life in what is best, and how the Trinity constituted the new creation in likeness with nothing less and no substitutes. Anything less and any substitutes in our thinking and perception of the gospel are challenged by Jesus’ gospel face to face. Anything less and any substitutes in our actions are confronted by his face-to-face justice in protest, which exposes a different gospel we have claimed behind the gospel we proclaim.

            Anything less and any substitutes for face-to-face reciprocal relationship together have become more complex in the modern context of technology. What is virtual has evolved into such realistic representation that it blurs the line with reality. What has simulated face-to-face connection or substituted for face-to-face involvement have become so pervasive on the internet and social media that they prevail for defining human identity and determining human function in everyday life. In this modern life lacking face to face, persons are experiencing the greatest lack of qualitative sensitivity and relational awareness witnessed in human history, which results in loneliness in the midst of what prevails. The accelerating consequence is reconstructing persons and relationships in a default mode that includes benign injustice, such that their practices in real reality further enable comparative injustice while they disable superlative justice.

            The only hope to redeem anything less and any substitutes is the face-to-face justice of Jesus’ gospel, which remains in disjunction with the prevalence of our gospel. Since that hope will not be realized until it is claimed face to face, those persons indeed proclaiming his whole-ly gospel will need to intensify their face-to-face relational response and involvement in order to deconstruct anything less and any substitutes—first in Christian culture and the church. This deconstruction includes exercising Jesus’ sword of uncommon change that will expose the virtual reality of relationships (as in Mk 7:6-8), break apart the simulation of relationships, for example, in biological families (as in Mt 10:34-36), and will unavoidably involve the relational depth to clean out God’s house in order to restore the primacy of face-to-face reciprocal relationships for all persons without any and all distinctions. Wherever anything less and any substitutes exist, at whatever level of human life, Jesus’ gospel of face-to-face justice urgently needs to be proclaimed in protest by persons in the primacy of face-to-face reciprocal relationship together for the sole relational purpose to bring superlative justice to victory—nothing less and no substitutes.

 

            Therefore, contrary to all that is convenient, those who claim the inconvenient truth of Jesus’ whole gospel are vulnerably involved without a veil over their heart, thus living only in the primary pursuit of face-to-face justice, so that their daily identity is defined and everyday function is determined integrally whole and uncommon (Dt 16:20) as inconvenient peacemakers belonging together face to face as God’s family (Mt 5:9).

            Why would you proclaim any other gospel?