4X12

Home    l    Diversity Study    l     Political Theology Study     l     Study on Music-like Theology     l      Bible Hermeneutics Study    l    Gender Equation Study

l   Justice Study    l   Whole-ly Disciples Study    l    Global Church Study    l   Transformation Study    l    Theological Anthropology Study   l    Theology Study

l   Integration Study   l    Paul Study    l    Christology Study    l    Wholeness Study    l    Essay on Wholeness    l     Spirituality Study   l   Essay on Spirituality

l   Discipleship Study    l    Uncommon Worship Study     l     Worship Study    l    Worship Language Study  l   Theology of Worship    l    Worship Perspectives

l   Worship Songs     l    About Us    l    Support Services/Resources    l    DISCiple Explained     l    Contact Us

 

The Diversity of the Integral Gospel

 Repurposing Diversity to Re-image the Global Church

 

Chapter 4           Scrutinizing Christian Diversity

 

Sections

 

 

The What’s Dissonant to You?

The Illusion of Consonance

The “New” Normal

The Litmus Test

The Underlying Nature of Language

Challenging Interpretations

The Basis for Challenging Interpretations

The Pivotal Challenge of Incarnated Interpretation

Perceiving Outsiders and Insiders

Contextualized by and in Culture

The Culture of Contextualized Christians

Paradigm Shift in Theology and Practice

Jesus’ Integral Approach

The Culture of Our Theology and Practice

The Secondary or the Primary
 

Ch.1

Ch.2

Ch.3

Ch.4

Ch.5

Ch.6

Ch.7

Printable pdf 

(Entire study)

Table of Contents

 

Scripture Index

 

Bibliography

 

 

“Nothing beyond what is written in the Word,” so that none of you will be puffed up in favor of one against another. For who sees anything different in you?

1 Corinthians 4:6-7

 

For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you

not to think of yourself more highly than you ought to think.

Romans 12:3

 

 

 

            My wife and I like many different genres of music. We also enjoy diverse styles of how different music is expressed. What is challenging in listening to diverse styles of different genres is this ongoing issue: Discerning between what commonly reverberates from what deeply resonates. It is common, for example, for diverse styles of pop music to quantitatively reverberate but not have the qualitative depth to resonate in the hearts of listeners; the same can be said of contemporary Christian music. Human brains are certainly wired to get stirred up by reverberating music. Nevertheless, this must not be confused with resonating in the heart. If you want to be satisfied or deeply moved by the latter, then you have to scrutinize the diverse styles and different genres in order to distinguish their qualitative integrity and the significance they have.

            My wife and I have learned that without being able to distinguish the qualitative integrity and significance in music, people readily default to what they are partial to in terms of styles and genres. Their partiality then forms biases that impose favor and disfavor on the existing diversity. While there is some tolerance of diversity, a real consequence evolving from this diversity is varying degrees of tension, with conflict and divisiveness most likely to evolve between the distinctions. An example of this consequence was experienced in church gatherings, where conflicts and divisions had descended over what genre and style of worship music to use. The residue from what precipitated a worship battle still remains today, even under a veil of tolerance and perhaps in the compromise of blended worship.

            The diversity equation for music is a microcosm of what evolves on the macro level of global diversity. The conflict and divisive consequences of human diversity have evolved most in the democratic context of the U.S. In a recent Pew Research Center survey of people in seventeen countries in Europe, Asia and North America, the U.S. reported the most division along partisan, racial, ethnic and religious lines—notably with their high levels of conflict combining to render democracy’s integrity without significance and threaten its future. What overlaps with the current condition of the U.S. is the condition of the church; and included in what underlies the U.S.’s conflict and divisiveness is the diverse participation of its unscrutinized Christian diversity, which is reflected in the consequences evolved and still evolving in the church.

            Whether on the local, national, regional or global level, diversity needs to be scrutinized to determine the qualitative integrity and significance each different composition has. The diversity of Christians and churches need to account for this, or they will be responsible for the consequences of their partiality and biases. Further consequential for diversity at any human and church level is the inevitable inequality among distinctions that evolve from our partiality (prejudices) and biases, which create unavoidable inequity between distinctions as a favored one disfavors the other.

            Therefore, as many Christians diverge and more churches diversify, it is imperative that Christian diversity be scrutinized, because “God, who knows the human heart…has made no distinction between them and us (Acts 15:8-9).

 

 

What’s Dissonant to You?

 

            Listening to any particular music creates dissonance for some listeners and consonance for others. Assuming the music is in tune, it’s not the music itself that produces dissonance or consonance but the ear of the listener. That is, our partiality to our likes predisposes our ear to hear consonance in that music while hearing dissonance in music disliked. The strength of this predisposition determines the extent of the bias we have and thereby impose favor or disfavor on other distinctions.

            In the existing reality of human diversity, how we see (perhaps even hear) human distinctions shaped more by our eye and revolves less on the distinction. The eye of the beholder is the basic perceptual-interpretive lens that is not an objective instrument—that many presume it to be—which is free from bias and thus objective about what it sees. Therefore, the distinctions composing human diversity are always seen through a biased lens—a lens, of course, whose unavoidable bias inevitably imposes dissonance or consonance on those distinctions.

            This is the existential reality of global diversity, which is propagated overtly or covertly by some distinctions and is experienced explicitly or implicitly by many other distinctions. The favored distinctions are consonant for and among them, while the disfavored distinctions are dissonant in relation to them. So, what distinctions have dissonance for you? And have you ever experienced dissonance about your own distinction, personal or collective?

            Human diversity is composed with distinctions that are either created by God or human constructions. Race, for example, is a prominent distinction not of God’s creation but of human construction; God didn’t create race, humans did. Gender is a created distinction, whose value is measured also by human construction. The critical issue for diversity that needs scrutiny centers on the human constructs biasing the perceptual-interpretive lens for seeing, assessing, and stereotyping distinctions. Christians and churches have been and continue to be susceptible to and/or complicit in human constructs, the prevalent influence of which biases their perceptual-interpretive lens accordingly. The distinctions composing Christian diversity that evolve from such lenses are problematic and consequential; and they will continue to be the default condition without scrutiny.

            Yet, Christians and churches make assumptions about their lenses, most notably presuming that they’re biblical, and thus not requiring scrutiny in spite of related problematic situations and consequential circumstances. The assumption of being biblical—thereby to be acceptable, right or even ordained—is a prevalent position in Christian diversity that is based on this antecedent assumption: The interpretive lens used to read the Bible is without bias, therefore whatever views unfold from this lens are deemed biblical. The diversity of interpretations (e.g. of the gospel and discipleship), however, unfolding from presumed unbiased lenses makes evident a predisposition in their perceptual-interpretive mindset. Their scrutiny counters such an assumption and critiques those interpretations with the qualitative relational framework of the whole-ly Word (as in 1 Cor 4:6).[1]

            In the diversity presumed to be biblical by the early church, Paul confronted this problem and the consequences for making distinctions in their theology and using them in their practice. Paul raised the penetrating question that serves as the wake-up call to Christian diversity: “Who sees anything different in you?” (1 Cor 4:7) The construction of distinctions was clearly evident in the church at Corinth, and their diversity was divisive (1 Cor 1:11-12; 3:3-4). On the one hand, by asking “who sees,” Paul exposes the bias in their perceptual-interpretive lens. On the other hand, however, Paul illuminates the fundamental lens lacking among them, which is fundamental for Christian theology and practice. “See” (diakrino) for the fundamental lens is to recognize, discern and distinguish what intrinsically really underlies the existing reality of distinctions. With the fundamental lens all such distinctions have no essential significance and are only secondary at best.

            When human constructs prevail, however, those distinctions evolve to become primary over “what is written in the Word” (as Paul made primary, 1 Cor 1:19,31; 3:19-20)—making them biblically contrary to the Word. This shift often goes beyond the awareness of a biased perceptual-interpretive lens, especially when the assumption of being biblical prevails. In the above account of the early church, who would have thought that identifying with and belonging to Christ, Peter, Apollos or Paul was unbiblical (1 Cor 1:12)? Yet, even with the likely prevalence of good intentions, these distinctions went “beyond what is written in the Word,” and thereby became dissonant for the church (i.e. the church constituted by the embodied Word). Human constructs create inevitable dissonance with others’ distinctions, because these differences fall unavoidably into a comparative process that generates competition (as Paul exposed, 2 Cor 11:12-13). Under the guise of diversity, the existential dissonance would result inescapably in “divisions among you” (1 Cor 1:10-11).

            Is this the state of diversity in the global church today? And does the dissonance about distinctions you’ve experienced locally and regionally apply to global Christianity?

 

 

The Illusion of Consonance

 

            Unless your ear is fine-tuned melodically, you can be listening to your favored music and not notice when there is dissonance. Your ear just assumes the music’s consonance, just as it presumes dissonance for your disfavored music. Here again, it’s not your ear that’s the real problem but your bias predisposing you one way or the other. Thus, there is an illusion of consonance that makes us comfortable even when we should feel uneasy or discomfort in the presence of dissonance.

            The interaction between consonance and dissonance is an either-or dynamic that distinguishes one from the other. Yet, the two distinctions get conflated when a biased lens assumes consonance for what is really dissonance. This illusion of consonance is maintained in the presence of dissonance by the formation of a hybrid distinction: A distinction claiming to be correct, right or significant on the basis of diffusing a dissonant distinction, so that some elements of that distinction could be absorbed into what can now be identified as consonance. Whenever a favored distinction is composed with any disfavored elements, the either-or dynamic is breached to make the two different distinctions ambiguous. Many evangelical Christians in the U.S., for example, demonstrate such a hybrid by embracing populism, which is the practice of allegiance to the majority’s concerns and actions even if dissonant (such as white supremacy) to the Word.

            This hybrid distinction creates illusions about what is consonant that in effect promote a new normal for consonance. Therefore, such consonance evolves from biased perceptual-interpretive lenses, whereby presumed consonance is confirmed (as in confirmation bias) to enable and sustain the illusion of a favored distinction as consonant. This is the underlying dynamic for all human distinctions that needs to be scrutinized.

 

            The above either-or dynamic operating in human distinctions is scrutinized by the Word for the existential reality of illusions in everyday life, notably evolving subtly in hybrid distinctions. In Jesus’ definitive manifesto for his followers (outlined in the Sermon on the Mount), he continues to put into juxtaposition the either-or condition engaged in everyday life. This either-or process should not be confused with a Hegelian dialectic because the two conditions cannot be synthesized for a whole outcome.

            A critical either-or is between a good tree and a bad tree, which will determine the outcome in everyday life (Mt 7:15-20). This critical disjunction is the basic either-or of good-bad, a distinction which became ambiguous in the primordial garden with the illusion of “good and evil” and the deluded hope of “knowing good and evil to be like God” (Gen 3:5). From this basic good-bad disjunction are the either-or extensions of right-wrong, fair-unfair, just-unjust, each of which may have variable definitions relative to their root source or authority base. Jesus’ metaphor of a tree makes unequivocal that a tree’s fruit depends on its roots. Bad roots yield only bad fruit and cannot be expected to yield good fruit, though good fruit is not always distinguished from bad fruit. This is where the disjunction with a good tree becomes unclear, because it could be made ambiguous with variable alternatives from a bad tree constructing illusions and cultivating delusions of good fruit.

            Jesus clarified and corrected the disjunction between the trees and the outcomes their roots determine. Critical to the outcome are those “trees” who augment or hybridize the “fruit” to create illusions about reality, such as false prophets who whitewash the reality of peace (as in Eze 13:10) and promote false hopes for justice (as in Jer 23:16-17). These false narratives (or ones lacking justice) continue to be advocated today by Christians operating under illusions, a condition which grieved Jesus about God’s people in the past and still today (Lk 19:41-42). After over two millennia since the Word embodied the gospel of peace (as in Jn 14:27, cf. Eph 6:15), here we are still apparently lacking his gospel’s relational-language composition for our theology and practice—even when the gospel appears referentially right in our theology or practice. This faces us with the uneasy reality of Jesus’ “hard road” and his gospel’s “narrow gate.”

            Whenever we live explicitly or implicitly with subtle illusions, we are in a critical condition needing urgent care. Unknowingly living in and promoting such illusions could be shocking feedback for those working diligently for peace and justice. Hopefully it is uprooting feedback, since the issue here goes down to the roots and the potential delusion of either evolving from bad (false, variable or incomplete) roots under the assumption of being good, or thinking a hybrid of roots is a good basis to work from. How can we know the specific roots of the tree from which we are working in our distinction in particular and in Christian diversity in general?

            If we are willing to suspend our assumptions and biases, we can exercise a hermeneutic of suspicion (an honest examination of our views and actions) about the so-called fruits of our discipleship with peace and justice in order to get to the roots of their tree. Namely, does our discipleship embody the whole-ly peace given by Jesus, and thereby integrally enact the justice that the embodied Word was sent to “proclaim justice to human diversity…until he brings justice to victory” (Mt 12:18-21? And given the Word’s essential purpose of justice, how do his followers address the inequality and inequity in Christian diversity that evolve from the distinctions in the global church (cf. Jer 9:23-24)?

            This is the indispensable purpose and outcome for Jesus putting into juxtaposition the either-or disjunction composing the reality of everyday life and related illusions and delusions. Central to his relational process to distinguish his whole-ly followers, Jesus dispels such illusions and exposes any delusion composing a new normal by getting to the heart of our identity and function.

 

The “New” Normal

 

            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 that can be counted on in relationships—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 root basis for justice and its outcome of 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 (diverse 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 objectified 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 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 in Christian diversity 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 condition and has interfered with its redemptive change—shortchanging or retarding the basic outcome of the embodied Word’s whole gospel by enabling anything less and any substitutes.

            Illusions and delusions from the “new” normal have seduced Christians and preoccupied us with the secondary over the primary in our everyday priorities (as Jesus outlines, Mt 6:19-32). But, Jesus 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—the diversity of 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 our diverse distinctions 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 God’s rule of law and thereby who make the irreducible peace of wholeness.

            Christian diversity is always problematic when it evolves as a consequence of a biased perceptual-interpretive lens and then adapts in new normals under the illusion of consonance. This diversity evolves notably when tradition (religious and/or cultural) assumes priority over the Word to bias its interpretation. Thus, the identity and function signified diversely in theology and practice need to be scrutinized further by a litmus test.

 

 

The Litmus Test

 

            In the digital age, the diversity of human identity and function has evolved on social media with adaptations that are acceptable and thus appropriate for that context, but which could be inappropriate and relatively unacceptable in non-virtual real life—although new normals are an evolving reality in everyday life. The diversity of Christian identity and function is analogous to this social reality, only the dynamic can be reflexive. Accordingly, Christian identity and function evolve diversely based on presumed interpretations of the Word that are deemed acceptable and thus appropriate variations for global Christianity, but which are inappropriate and unacceptable to the whole-ly Word and gospel’s irreducible and nonnegotiable existential life. Therefore, the diversity of global Christianity must scrutinize the social-media like influence on its biblical interpretations and return to the whole-ly identity and function of the qualitative relational Word, or else adapt to new normals in theology and practice.

            Thus, when Paul stated the imperative “nothing beyond what is written in the Word” in response to the diversity in the church at Corinth, he applied the litmus test essential to scrutinize the distinctions basic to their diverse identity and function. Paul applied this litmus test directly to Apollos and himself “for your benefit, brothers and sisters, so that you may learn through us the meaning of the litmus test” (1 Cor 4:6). The key factor in this test is not the Word by itself but “nothing beyond the Word.” Historically, going beyond God’s Word has been a hermeneutic problem for God’s people, so this test is essential to get to the hermeneutical roots of the problem. Because assumptions are made about the words uttered from God’s mouth, the interpretive lenses used for the Word conclude diversely such that “everyone’s own word becomes his oracle and so you distort the words of the living God, the Lord Almighty, our God” (Jer 23:36, NIV).

            Making God’s Word into one’s personal oracle by distorting its composition can be a subtle process that many Christians would be unaware of. The initial critical issue to scrutinize in this process is the essential function of language. As you stand in the hermeneutical position ‘in front of’ the Bible seeking to know and understand God, you likely have been susceptible to want to get into a secondary hermeneutical position ‘behind this text’ in order to gain this presumptive basic level in your learning and education.[2] You are not alone. Many have pursued this path, guided by historical criticism and linguistics. Theological as well as political studies have been influenced by a linguistic focus; and such a linguistic turn also has become central in the writing of social history.[3] What emerges in this process is the centrality of language and how it is used to construct information, discourse and even thought. Those engaged with the Bible also have to enter into a central focus on language, yet by taking only a qualified (if not chastened) turn to linguistics.

            Obviously, in order for individuals or groups to have any mutual exchange and further interaction, they must share the same language. This shared language can be verbal and/or nonverbal (as in body language), yet with expressions and signs common to each other in order to have that exchange and interaction. On the other hand, even persons or groups who share the same language can have difficulty exchanging, interacting and being on the same level of understanding.

            In the Bible we can observe similar difficulty and challenges with language, as well as give testimony of our similar personal experiences with the Word. Perhaps, not surprisingly, you may feel that you and the Word don’t share the same language, and there may be more truth to that than is apparent. To highlight this reality, consider that the Jewish Jesus said directly to Jewish believers, “Why is my language not clear to you?” (Jn 8:43, NIV) Certainly his words were not foreign to them, but the meaning of his language was uncommon to them. In other words, though they shared the same language expressions, they didn’t share the same language signs. And what is underlying this difficulty is the factual reality that essentially they didn’t have the same language as the Word to “know the Truth” (Jn 8:32). This paradoxical linguistic contrast led to their interpretation conflict in misunderstanding the Word (8:33-41), not to mention their diverse interpretations contrary to the qualitative relational integrity composing God’s Word. Critical to this process, what underlies interpretation conflicts with the Word are language barriers generated, erected and sustained by reductionism (8:42-47).

 

The Underlying Nature of Language

 

            Jesus used parables to express various ideas, yet his thoughts and meaning behind them unfolded only in the nature of his language. This was problematic for those who heard him, even for his disciples. When the disciples asked him what a particular parable meant, he told them to their surprise: “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God; but to others I speak in parables, so that in spite of ‘looking they may not perceive, and listening they may not understand’” (Lk 8:9-10). Jesus’ words didn’t guarantee that the disciples understood him; on the contrary, they frequently didn’t understand the words from Jesus. For example, after his imperative to “Let these words sink into your ears,” he revealed vulnerably what was to happen to him. “But they did not understand his words; its meaning was concealed from them, so they could not perceive it” (Lk 9:44-45). Given how Jesus distinguished the perception of his disciples moments earlier, in contrast to others’ lack, how do we explain the disciples lack and thus loss?

            The Word’s language is not readily apparent from these interactions. The clarity of the Word is illuminated when the Word’s original language is distinguished “In the beginning” (Jn 1:1; Gen 1:1), which isn’t the context paid attention to commonly in biblical interpretations. John’s Gospel is crucial for defining the Word’s horizon (main context) in complete context, so that the gospel is whole and neither reduced nor fragmented by a Word out of context.

            In the beginning the Creator constituted the persons (no matter the gender) in the primordial garden with an irreducible ontology, an irreplaceable epistemology and a nonnegotiable relationship, the function of which distinguished the image and likeness of the whole of God (integrally incorporating the Word and the Spirit). Those defining words from the Creator (Gen 1:28-30; 2:16-17), expressed in an historical or allegorical context, were either given to human persons to inform them of the parameters of their human function; or they were shared with those persons to communicate distinctly the terms for the relationship between them and the Creator. If the words communicated the terms for relationship together, then these relational terms could only be distinguished when composed in relational language. Anything less than relational language would be ambiguous, elusive, and simply open to variable interpretation of those relational terms; the consequence would be to substitute the Word’s relational terms with other (notably human) terms to define the relationship, as observed in Christian diversity. The terms for most relationships are open for negotiation, at least in theory. The Word’s relational terms, however, are nonnegotiable, and this truth has been ignored, denied or simply not understood by God’s people since this beginning—with Christians having assumed the most negotiating posture in their divergent practices of faith, though not overtly as if composing a new normal Rule of Faith yet in fact following one.

 

            This consequence evolved in the primordial garden from the beginning when the question was raised “Did God really say that?” (Gen 3:1) What needs to be understood in this encounter is the linguistic dynamic that on the surface innocently challenged God’s relational language. But then, what evolved is the substitution of an apparently reasonable alternate language to be definitive instead of relational language. How so?

            First of all, the nature of the language expressing God’s words was changed from the relational language originally used to communicate to an alternate language used merely to inform (Gen 3:4-5). The common shift to an alternative primary focus on transmitting information over communicating relationship then opened the door to two major linguistic shifts of the words from God:

  1. A selective process of omitting, neglecting, disregarding, or denying God’s words, albeit in a manner that seems reasonable and not irrational, or even merely benign (just as is acceptable and appropriate in social media).
  2. The deconstruction of the words from God and their reinterpretation in an alternate language speaking “like God,” which both informs (read misinforms) and serves the self-interests/concerns of the interpreter (as in 3:6).

These major shifts transposed ‘the words from God in relational language’ to ‘the words of God in referential language’, and thereby altered the nature of the Word’s original language. The consequence for this beginning that still prevails today is:

The use of referential language that is unable to compose relational terms in order to communicate but is limited only to inform—the narrow transmission of information—therefore a language that cannot understand the composition of the words from the Word no matter the wealth of information (even about “good and evil”) processing the words of God it can transmit to speak for God (as if “like God”).

Indeed, “Why is my language not clear to you?” must be answered by Christian diversity more deeply than with referential language, no matter how acceptable and appropriate biblically.

            The genius of reductionism is its reasonable appearance in questioning the words from God. After all, don’t we read the Bible because we want to know if God said ‘that’? In reductionism’s subtle challenge, however, its linguistic shift moves from what God said to what God really meant by ‘that’. And it would be a serious mistake for our engagement with the Bible to defer (perhaps bow) to the seeming innocence of this shift. By focusing solely on God’s intention, the actual words from God were only used for reference, whereby the real meaning of God’s words was opened to conjecture, to the bias of assumptions, even to scholarly speculation—as pervades the academy and preoccupies its education. In other words, the hermeneutic door was opened to diversity of interpretation, creating a Biblepedia of information, based on an epistemic realm reduced from the original language of the words from God to a fragmentary language only referring to the words of God.

            Substituting referential language for relational language has changed the nature of language, which then also alters the purpose of language. This is the linguistic condition from the beginning that composes the narrative of the human condition, which encompasses the diverse condition of Christians and churches. Sadly, yet not surprising, we seem to be unaware of or appear to not understand the different natures of the language that God uses and the language that we use instead—the purpose and goal of reductionism since the beginning. That’s why Jesus clarified his question with the definitive response: “Because you are unable to hear the language I speak and the relational words I say. You identify with the father of reductionism and you defer to its desires” (Jn 8:44, NIV).

 

Challenging Interpretations

 

            Persons, groups, peoples and nations turn to the Bible for various reasons and purposes. What results from their engagement are interpretations even more diverse than the diversity of those engaged. Diversity in itself creates challenges to different interpretations, with an implied competition to have the right or best interpretation; this has been the presumed position taken by Western Christians over the global South. In this challenging climate, more and more persons in the global church (perhaps some groups and fewer peoples) are seeing diversity as vital and thus as necessary for theology and practice to progress—notably to advance beyond Western Christian dominance. Most important, however, whether in the global South or North, biblical interpretations need to be challenged, but not in order to see who has the right or best interpretations of the words of God in referential language. Rather, challenges are necessary to determine if interpretations have both the integrity and the significance of the words from God in relational language, thereby supporting the nature of God’s language and fulfilling its purpose.

            John’s Gospel includes two narratives that (1) illuminate the need for challenging interpretations and (2) highlight the interpretive issues with the nature and purpose of the Word’s relational language—with both narratives exposing the interpretive engagement of an alternate perceptual-interpretive mindset.

            In the first narrative, Jesus challenged the interpretations of those intensely searching the Scriptures, who thought their interpretations resulted in knowing God and having eternal life (Jn 5:39-40). What had evolved from their interpretations was indeed a large quantity of information about God, yet information composed only by the words of God in referential language. What did not result from their perceptual-interpretive mindset was an unbiased interpretation of the words from God embodied before them face to face. Who they saw before them was determined by how they saw him with their mindset. So, that unbiased result wasn’t possible with the language barrier they had with the Word’s relational language. By challenging their interpretations, Jesus exposed (1) the nature of their referential language, (2) the bias imposed on their interpretations by their alternate mindset formed by referential language, and (3) the barrier erected to prevent entering the Word’s qualitative realm of relational connection. The consequence was not having the experiential truth and relational reality of eternal life but merely the epistemological illusion and ontological simulation of it. Therefore, given how diverse Christians claim eternal life from a fragmentary gospel, does this first narrative intensify the need to challenge the interpretations of many Christians today throughout the global church and academy?

            The second narrative amplifies the need to challenge diverse interpretations, including apparently favorable interpretations. This narrative began with the miracle of Jesus feeding the 5,000 (Jn 6:14), which extended from his other previous miracles. Many interpreted his miracle as the true fulfillment of the prophet promised to them in the OT (Dt 18:15,18). Yet, this favorable interpretation didn’t emerge from the Book of Love (the relational language constituting the Book of Law) composed by God’s relational love language, so Jesus challenged their interpretation to expose their bias: “I tell you the truth, you are following me, not because you saw miraculous signs” (6:26, NIV). The language sign for miracle (semeion) goes beyond just the act itself (unique as it is) to distinguish who and what it indicates. Thus, they were not following the person Jesus revealed by semeion. Consequently, their interpretation had to be challenged, which included exposing their bias centered on self-interest/concern: “but because you ate the loaves and had your desires filled.” Yet, the challenge process didn’t stop here since the need was urgent. The Word continued to clarify his relational language and correct their referential language, seeking to change their perceptual-interpretive mindset (6:27-34). As they indicated an initial openness to change, the Word then disclosed his whole person in the nature and purpose of relational language; and he also defined the relational terms for the involvement necessary for relationship together (6:35-58). Sadly, “when many of his disciples heard the Word’s relational language and terms, they said, ‘This teaching is difficult, who can accept it?’” (6:60). So, their initial openness to change was closed by their rigid mindset formed by the reductionist workings of referential language, which selectively interpreted parts of the Word it could accept in referential terms. This is the nature and purpose of referential language with the primary focus on the quantitative from outer in; and the Word goes on to distinguish the whole-ly God’s relational language composing the qualitative from inner out that contrasts and conflicts with its reduction (6:61-64).

            This points us back to the vital relational message that Jesus communicated in his questions above: his message centered on their/our person, how he sees them/us and how they/we see themselves/ourselves. The need for challenging our interpretations is heightened when we don’t make a crucial distinction in “how you listen” (the Word’s distinction, Lk 8:18). This distinction defines the ontology (or identity) of our person and determines our function in the following manner:

  • When we listen for the words of God with the human brain, which includes using the human mind, we quantify our identity and function as a person merely from the outer in, and nothing more of significance is considered primary and accounted for, though not necessarily to the exclusion of anything secondary.
  • When we listen to the words from God with the human heart, which includes using the brain and mind to integrate the whole person, we define our ontology and function in the primary significance of qualitative-relational terms from the inner out, though not to the exclusion of the quantitative secondary but always in this order of priority.

The embodied Word always requires us to be vulnerable to our whole person, and scrutinizing our interpretations of the Word is often more vulnerable than we would like to be. Hence, it’s easier and more comfortable to stay within the limits and constraints of our brains.

 

The Basis for Challenging Interpretations

 

            The words from God converge in the Bible, and its text unfolds in a historical narrative that frames the real story (neither fictional nor virtual) of God’s actions in the universe and involvement with created life. Thus, interpreting the Bible must take into account this history. As Murray Rae states: “The Bible does not present us with a set of timeless or universal truths that can be abstracted from history but directs our attention to the God who makes himself known precisely through the particularities of history.”[4] At the same time, this historical account must be interpreted theologically—contrary to historical criticism—in order to fully account for God’s vulnerable action and relational involvement in the human context, not to overlook accounting for the whole-ly God’s ontology. The lack or absence of such accounting has allowed the reductionism of God, of the trajectory of God’s presence, and of the path of God’s involvement, all to human terms, shaping or construction—that is, reduced to the common of life prevailing in the human context, including its history. Thus, while historical input refines interpretation, along with form and literary input, it is neither the main nor the most significant basis for challenging interpretations.

            Moreover, interpreting the Bible isn’t just about exegesis of texts, no matter how accurate that information may be. Exegesis alone does not give us whole understanding (synesis, as in Col 2:2-4) of God’s presence and involvement, even though it may yield greater quantity of knowledge detailing that. Without minimizing its value, exegetical interpretations must be qualified by hermeneutics and integrated together. Hermeneutics is needed for that understanding to emerge; yet, the hermeneutic process also needs to be qualified in order to understand God as revealed in Scripture.[5]

            Whole understanding emerges based on how God is revealed in Scripture—that is, based on God’s communication for the integral purpose of self-disclosure distinguished by the relational words from God, rather than based on surrogates just transmitting information about God using the referential words of God. This distinction of how God is integrally revealed in and by the Word is essential for defining the primary basis to challenge interpretations, so that understanding can truly be determined. Making this distinction, however, has been ambiguous, ignored or simply not understood by most who engage the Bible, thereby rendering interpretations diverse, and understanding elusive.

            It is unequivocal that the Bible as the text of God’s words is polyphonic. That is to say, various different voices (human as well as heavenly) have been instrumental in echoing the voice of God. While these voices lend their particular nuance (e.g. contextual setting or horizon) to the text, each voice is only secondary to the primary of God’s voice for composing the textual messages (i.e. the revelations of God’s presence and involvement). Therefore, while it is important to recognize and account for these different voices, they (individually or collectively) neither define nor determine the relational communication of the words from God. When this essential distinction is understood without partiality, the Word is emphatically distinguished:

God speaks for himself; and whenever primacy is given to other voices in the text—as well as voices of methods of interpretation either ‘behind the text’ or ‘in front of the text’—they subtly end up speaking for God instead of only echoing God’s voice; thus, they speak for God merely with reference to the words of God rather than echoing the relational messages communicated by the words from God.

            However, when the polyphonic sources are given their proper place in the Bible, the Word is echoed and highlighted such that the whole-ly God’s vulnerable presence and involvement are fully interpreted in their relational significance—for example, as the evangelist John did in his Gospel. On this basis, these secondary biblical voices then also serve to help us interpret the primacy of the relational words from God communicated directly to us in relationship for the sole relational purpose to experience in relationship together in our current context.[6] Assuming Moses’ voice in the Pentateuch, he teaches us not to focus on the information in the words of God but concentrate on the words from God communicated in relationship, that is, the primacy of face-to-face relationship (Ex 33:11-20, NIV). For Moses, the information of referential language wasn’t sufficient for his faith, nor to base his theology and practice on such interpretations. The relational significance of God’s voice could only be distinguished in relational language, so Moses held God accountable for God’s presence and involvement in only relational terms: “If your presence is not relationally involved with us…. Now show me your glory face to face”; therefore later God would illuminate his relational involvement with Moses, which God then clearly distinguished in correcting others questioning Moses’ interpretations (Num 12:6-8). This clarifies the primary basis by which interpretations need to be challenged for correction, just as Aaron and Miriam’s were. Likewise for our clarification and correction, when Moses asked above “Teach me” (Ex 33:13) the primary of God’s relational language, he clearly demonstrates for us the primary basis for interpreting the words from God—a relational teaching moment that should not be overlooked or ignored.

            Without the primary basis for interpreting the Bible, our interpretations evolve with adaptations to our surrounding contexts somewhat analogous to “the survival of the fittest.” This self-centering evolution is not surprising since it has been the normative dynamic from the beginning. In this adaptive evolution, the interpretations of God’s words have been influenced by the surrounding context and shaped by human thinking, self-interest and concern ever since the primordial garden. Not understanding and accounting for this human bias in our hermeneutics has resulted in the existing diversity and multiplicity of interpretations—a consequential process distinguished even in ancient times (Eccl 1:18; 5:1-3,7; 12:9-12) and witnessed by the Word on the road to Emmaus (Lk 24:17,25-27).

 

The Pivotal Challenge of Incarnated Interpretation

 

            By the counter-relational workings of reductionism, referential language has evolved today to adapt much engagement of the Bible in what essentially amounts to digitized interpretations: interpretation that is quantified without the significance of qualitative sensitivity and relational awareness. What is seen in the Bible emerges from how it is seen by a digitally influenced and shaped perceptual-interpretive mindset lacking a real sense of qualitative sensitivity and relational awareness, even though it may reference the qualitative and relational in its thinking and information about the words of God. The resulting digital information has amassed in existing theology and practice to compose them effectively as “Now both thinner and lighter” (as declared by Moses in a cartoon depicting him coming down from the mountain with the Law tablets raised above his head)[7]—which is contrary to how Moses depended directly on God to “teach me.” This condition, and its antecedent outworkings, will continue and further evolve unless it is challenged by what I call incarnated interpretation. This challenge is pivotal for theology and practice today, pivotal both in its basis and for the need it addresses.

            As the definitive text written in cursive (i.e. all connected), the Bible goes further and deeper than composing simply one story or single drama unified throughout. From its beginning the Word communicated the words from God on the whole basis in wholeness, which takes biblical theology further in understanding and deeper in biblical practice. And central to the Word is the incarnation that constitutes the pivot for the integral basis of the words from God, including communicated in the OT. Yet, for this relational process to unfold, the incarnation has to go beyond merely an historical event that gets formalized in doctrine for our theology and practice.

            Throughout the incarnation the embodied Word challenged the theology and practice of Judaism that were based on the Hebrew text rather than the original language. Without the original language of the Word, the OT is fragmented from its whole basis in wholeness, and thus reduced to referential information about the words of God that are no longer written in cursive. This critical difference is observed in interpreting Deuteronomy as either the Book of Law or the Book of Love (noted previously). The Word embodied the latter in the qualitative relational significance pivotal for (1) God’s presence and involvement “In the beginning” and since, for (2) the whole basis in wholeness distinguishing the words from God through the OT and NT, and for (3) challenging interpretations of anything less and any substitutes, which currently compose much theology and practice. Therefore, both the validity and reliability of the Bible, biblical interpretations, and the theology and practice formed thereby, all pivot on the incarnation as well as rise in likeness on the basis of the incarnated dynamic of nothing less and no substitutes. If they are not incarnated accordingly, then they are not based on the Word’s whole basis in wholeness, and consequently are always subject to the incarnation’s pivotal challenge.

            So, what does it mean to be incarnated? First of all, let’s be clear that this does not mean mere embodiment, which historically has undergone environmental changes—perhaps analogous to the environmental changes incurred by planet Earth.

            The interpretation of the incarnation was the central issue challenged first by different persons in the NT, next in the early church, and then throughout church history. Basic to this issue is who and what distinguish the incarnation, which leads to the how of the incarnation’s significance. We need to examine our own interpretations of the incarnation in light of this critical challenge—a challenge frequently rehearsed in referential language that doesn’t get to the full meaning of incarnated.

            The incarnation was not merely a body that came to us—though Christmas tradition has centered on that—the embodiment of which was the topic of major theological debate in the early church. Yet, embodiment focused on the object embodied in contrast to the incarnated subject-person who was embodied. The who Jesus embodied was the whole of God, neither just the title nor name of God nor merely attributes of God. The fact of the who was challenged in the NT and denied, distorted, or simply rendered the who to a fact; and even as fact, the nature of the who continued to be debated in early church history, with nuances about the who as object that diminished or obscured the who as subject embodied only as the whole person. This overlaps into the next dimensions of the incarnation, which are integral to be incarnated.

            Less central to this challenge and basic in this debate has been the what that Jesus embodied and enacted, along with the how. As the incarnation established the who of Jesus, he made imperative for those believing the who to “Follow me,” that is, follow the what of his whole person as subject constituted by whole ontology and function, not merely the who rendered to an object of belief. For the incarnated Jesus, the who is inseparable from the what, and to separate them would fragment his whole person and thereby reduce the whole of God constituted by the whole ontology and function of the Trinity. Yet, this separation is the most common interpretation of the incarnation by Christians, whereby the significance of being incarnated has been obscured or lost in their theology and practice. Furthermore, in this integral process to be incarnated, the what of the who is constituted solely by the how: Enacting whole ontology and function by the nonnegotiable relational terms of the whole of God’s vulnerable presence and relational involvement that distinguish the Trinity’s irreducible relational purpose and process of reciprocal relationship together in wholeness.

            The incarnated Jesus, therefore, didn’t come to us merely with the embodiment of a physical body, but most basically and essentially he came as the subject-person who incarnated the who, the what and the how of his whole person, his Trinitarian person. Accordingly, the Word incarnated also the image and likeness of the Trinity for us to be incarnated in the image and likeness of God’s whole ontology and function.[8] Neither one dimensional nor two dimensional, the incarnated Jesus integrates these three dimensions of Jesus’ whole person (in 3-D) on the Word’s whole basis in wholeness. Therefore, the incarnation is incarnated only when this whole person is the who, what and how Jesus embodied and enacted; and the who cannot be distinguished without the what, and only the how distinguishes the what of the who. The incarnated Jesus fully embodied nothing less than the who and what, and vulnerably enacted no substitutes for the how.         Accordingly and unmistakably, this incarnated dynamic constitutes integrally the who, what and how of the gospel on the Word’s whole basis in wholeness, whereby the good news offers the who, what and how for us to follow irreducibly and nonnegotiably on the Word’s basis. Not only, then, does this incarnated understanding challenge our interpretations of the incarnation, but it also challenges our interpretations of both the gospel and discipleship. So, is incarnated interpretation becoming too challenging for you?

            The Word ongoingly clarifies and corrects any reductionism of the words from God in relational language, which then by necessity includes clarifying and correcting anything less and any substitutes of the whole of God and God’s uncommon wholeness. When the LORD corrected faithful Samuel’s lens defining how he saw to determine what he saw, God’s lens was revealed to illuminate for all of us how God sees differently: “God does not see as humans see; they see from the outer in, thus partially and fragmented, but God sees from the inner out, thus integrally and whole” (1 Sam 16:7, paraphrasing God’s qualitative sensitivity and relational awareness).

            The words from God always illuminate God’s whole basis in wholeness. And what is magnified in the communication of God’s whole and wholeness is the experiential truth and relational reality that this is not only incarnated whole but also distinguished uncommon—thus distinguished from the common defining the human context and determining human life. The truth and reality are: The uncommon nature of the words from God unequivocally conflicts with the common, such that “This teaching is difficult; who can accept it in its original relational language?” (Jn 6:60) Indeed, it is much more palatable in referential language, even at the communion table as commonly practiced. That is also the existential truth of the presence and influence of reductionism in our theology, as well as the pervading reality of reductionism’s counter-relational workings in our practice.

            Incarnated interpretation, therefore, is not only a discomforting challenge for our theology and practice, but also a threatening confrontation of our identity and function that are contextualized by the common’s culture. Thus, for this scrutinizing purpose, Paul made imperative the litmus test of “nothing beyond the who, what, how embodied by the relational Word, in order that his gospel is not fragmented with anything less, so that his followers’ identity and function do not become fragmentary by any substitutes.”

 

 

Perceiving Outsiders and Insiders

 

            Throughout history, the identity of indigenous people has been relegated to darkness, making those insiders obscure to outsiders. Moreover, this identity even makes insiders ambivalent about who they are. Indigenous peoples have experienced this inequality from Western Christians through most of their missionary history, in which insiders suffered the inequity of being colonized by outsiders. On the other hand, Western Christians have experienced ambivalence about their identity as insiders in their own countries, which evolves from Christian ambiguity about who they are.

            Any cloudy view of Christian identity descends from the perception of who are insiders and who are outsiders. As a person of color, I usually saw myself as an outsider. When you are asked by whites “Where are you from?” or told that “you speak English very well,” their perception of me would be only an outsider. Even as a Christian among Christian insiders, I also experienced these perceptions as an outsider.

            This common experience makes evident that Christian perception of insiders and outsiders is typically not based on the whole-ly Word but rather based on a perceptual-interpretive lens influenced by the surrounding context. The contextual influence on Christians renders them in a theological fog, which makes ambiguous or obscure the relational reality of God’s response of grace constituting the whole gospel that makes no distinctions between contextual insiders and outsiders. Therefore, to counter the influence of surrounding contexts that Christians conform to, based on God’s relational response of grace Paul made imperative for Christians:

Be transformed from conformity to your surrounding contexts, so that “everyone among you will not think of yourself more highly as an insider than you ought to think, even if that’s acceptable and thus appropriate in your surrounding context” (Rom 12:2-3). 

            According to the Word, without the transformation constituted from the whole gospel, the surrounding context will prevail and Christian identity and function will readily conform to it as acceptable or appropriate. What, then, evolves is a biased perceptual-interpretive lens of who are insiders and outsiders, the diversity of which is critical to scrutinize for the significance of Christian identity and the integrity of Christian function.

            The horizons (contextual field) of the human context and God’s context are mutually exclusive, with a single exception: if One penetrates into the horizon of the other unilaterally, thereby entering into the other’s context on the basis of One’s own terms. This reality illuminates both God’s context and the human context, both of which need to be further known and better understood. Christians need to examine their own horizon to know and understand their surrounding context’s shaping influence on their function, general thinking, and specific interpretations as Christians—and not assume that the horizon of God’s context has converged with theirs.

            Contextualization has been a pivotal issue facing God’s people throughout human evolution. In Scripture, notably from the beginning of the OT, the people of God were exposed to a different context, which was distinctly contrasting and in conflict with God’s context, God’s whole and uncommon (whole-ly) context. This narrative, from the primordial garden through Israel’s history to the emergence of the church, describes the issues and consequences that evolved from this contextual encounter in everyday life with the surrounding contexts of the common’s world. Understanding these issues and consequences of contextualization, including their significance for the identity and function of God’s people, is basic for interpreting the Bible and a hermeneutic key for knowing and understanding God. Moreover, all of this that underlies contextualized humans both challenges as well as confronts Christian education in general and theological education in particular, calling into question what we are really learning about God. And the existing contextualization of Christians raises urgent concern for what is central to our education and the basis of our learning, whereby their causal source is determined.

            Jeremiah was told to echo God’s words communicated to his people, which illuminated their contextual shift evolving from the primordial garden: “For in the beginning from my context, I did not communicate to them or command them concerning sacrifices and other such secondary things to do” (Jer 7:22). Yet, throughout its ancient history, “sacrifices” was one of the main identity markers for the nation of Israel, which is even highlighted in the NT. So, how does this reflect the contextualized humans that evolved in and ever since the primordial garden? Two further ways.

            First, being the holy nation of God’s people was not enough to constitute Israel’s identity. As noted earlier, when Samuel grew old and needed to be replaced, the elders of Israel implored Samuel to appoint a king over them instead, much to Samuel’s alarm. He tried to change their minds, but they refused to listen because they were embedded in defining their identity as a nation-state just “like all the other nations” in Israel’s surrounding context (1 Sam 8:4-10,19-20, NIV). Their desire to be like those in the surrounding context made evident their evolution as contextualized humans.

            Secondly, Jeremiah was told to repeat to them the relational words from God: “But this relational imperative I gave them, ‘Relationally respond to my voice and I will be your God and you shall be my people; and be relationally involved in the primacy of relationship together only in the way of my relational terms’” (Jer 7:23). They assumed that God’s context had converged with their religious context and thereby were identified as God’s people. But, they had shifted from the primary constituting God’s context and became preoccupied with the secondary composing the surrounding human context; consequently, they had their identity shaped and their function reduced to the outer in—and how they transposed the Book of Love to the Book of Law. In this subtle shift, what was not apparent to them was obvious to God: They were contextualized humans “to be apart” from God’s whole-ly context.

            What is primary in human life has undergone fundamental changes; and the primacy now determining what’s primary often differs from one surrounding context to another. What is primary for defining our identity and determining our daily function is the primacy given to the main surrounding context prevailing in our person and life together. The subtly or implicit primary used for this outcome is often not understood unless the determining primacy shaping this process is known. Contextualized humans don’t evolve from a mere concept or from merely a theory abstracted from concepts. The determining primacy we give our context shapes the primary used by all contextualized humans for their identity and function, evolving from the ways that particular context works out the life and practice within it and the significance given to those ways. This goes beyond merely a system of beliefs and values; even though such a system may have influence, that influence tends to be virtual by promoting ideals, which alone would be insufficient to contextualize humans. What does contextualize humans, and often irresistibly in key ways, is a specific culture of that surrounding context. Therefore, this culture composes the determining primacy we need to know, and signifies the primary determinant we need to understand, in order to scrutinize the extent of influence our surrounding contexts could be having on our identity and function, and thereby on how we see what we see in the Word for our theology and practice.

 

Contextualized by and in Culture

 

            In everyday life, culture is not something we think about; we just assume it or take it for granted, if we even know it’s there. Culture is present in every human context, however culture is defined and whatever shape a human context takes. Culture also has a particular identity, and, depending on your definition of culture, culture promotes an identity for the participants (active or passive) in that context, either by belonging to it or by association. When culture generates the identity of its participants, this becomes an ongoing issue of identity formation and maintenance—particularly as contexts intersect, which is the norm in human life and practice as well as the reality for Christians.

            I define culture as inseparable from identity and function, and use the following working definition in our discussion:

Culture is the life and practice (in its various expressions) of a collective group (formal or informal, large or small) of persons, the distinction of which relatively both defines who and what they are and determines how they function, thereby being a primary source of their identity and determinant of their function—all of which can operate explicitly or implicitly in a subtle process. Culture is not about an individual person but a social dynamic of persons who belong and/or identify in a context together.

            Since we all participate in some type of collective group, we are all part of a particular culture that defines our person and determines how we function—relatively speaking, of course. To this extent we are never free of culture and always apply our culture to our activities, even in biblical interpretation. Therefore, as the main determinant in our everyday lives, culture works overtly or covertly to encompass how we see what we see, how we do what we do, thus basically has primary say over how we

live what we live. The consequence of all this is: Culture is the contextualizing agent in that context, and intentionally or unintentionally we are contextualized by and in that culture, knowingly or not.

            Examine this existing reality evolving exponentially in today’s context, and tune in more carefully to what you see. In this high-tech world, “who” is the most common companion you see persons interacting with, wherever they are, whether in a crowd or alone, whether dining in public or at the family dinner table, or even while driving? That’s right, the companion is a smartphone or similar digital device that preoccupies the primary interaction of many persons today. This is not just a modern phenomenon but the existential reality of contextualized persons living in and by the culture of their surrounding context—a culture that ongoingly shapes, constructs and reconstructs their identity while dominating their daily function, even when going to the bathroom. The culture of the high-tech world has only recently been recognized for its impact on persons, including rewiring their brains from as early as the formative years of childhood. Yet, it is not technology to blame here but its culture contextualizing persons accordingly.

            From this micro level let’s zoom out to the macro level to observe the growing systemic context of globalization. The rising tide of globalization is causing a flood of changes in modern societies, which has raised speculation about the sovereignty and autonomy of modern states.[9] Globalization is having a pivotal impact both economically (positive and negative) and politically (responsive or reactionary); and its expanding efforts in general[10] and for U.S. politico-economic policy more specifically[11] need to be recognized and understood. Whether we are aware of it or not, and no matter what we think about it, we all are being contextualized into globalization—contextualized by and in this fragmentary global culture. Despite any good intentions of human achievement for the purpose of so-called human progress, the engulfing reality of global culture is that it is not whole and thus will not contextualize humans in wholeness—just as observed in the efforts to build the tower of Babel (Gen 11:1-9). Having said that, globalization itself (like technology) is not the culprit here but its culture formed by those propagating it.

            Whether at the macro level or the micro level, and the spectrum in-between, the culture contextualizing humans in those contexts is neither neutral nor inconsequential. Therefore, as the definitive determinant for human identity and function, culture needs to be understood, addressed, and changed accordingly in order for contextualized humans not to live in reduced human identity and by reduced human function—so that whole ontology and function can emerge. And Christians and churches are found in the middle of this formative process. One notable example, in the U.S. we are contextualized currently in a culture war that is amplifying a partisan divide, which has formed Christian identity and function according to its divisive distinctions. These divisive distinctions have fragmented Christians into insiders and outsiders among ourselves—an unavoidable consequence of diversity culturally contextualized.

            Christians need to take to heart the definitive paradigm made axiomatic by Jesus (Mk 4:24), and tune in carefully to the culture in their surrounding context: The measure of culture you use will be the perceptual-interpretive mindset you get for the identity and function for both your person and others, either as insiders or outsiders. Whether we zoom out or zoom in, the common measure of culture has contextualized humans in a reduced measure of anthropology in general, and in the specific reduced measures first and foremost of gender (as witnessed in the primordial garden),[12] then of race, ethnicity, class, age, ableness, and other human characteristics and distinctions. Consequently, this is not only a contextual issue but a systemic problem, both of which Christians need to address.

 

The Culture of Contextualized Christians

 

            Ever since the human context evolved from the primordial garden, the cultures formed in the surrounding contexts of humanity have never been neutral or inconsequential. Intrinsic to the composition of all cultures is the language of sin as reductionism, which underlies composing how culture functions in what it practices. Cultures interpret the language of sin in diverse ways, yet mostly in language without reductionism, even with acceptable revisions of sin as reductionism that appear to be favorable or at least neutral and inconsequential. Nevertheless, the language of sin as reductionism still underlies the composition of any and all cultures. This is the intractable condition of the human context that has evolved from the primordial garden, and that has been diversely adapted by and in the cultures of all surrounding human contexts thereafter.

            Certainly, Christians have not been immune from being contextualized, and thus immune from having their perceptual-interpretive mindset shaped by the contextualizing culture. The explicit and subtle influence of a culture contextualizing Christians then shapes how we see what see, how we do what we do, how we live what we live—which certainly has permeated how we learn what we learn and how we teach what we teach,

thus how our education is what Christian education is. Indeed, culture is neither neutral nor inconsequential; and as Christians participate in their surrounding contexts, we must never assume that we have not been or are not being reduced in our ontology and function by our contexts’ cultures.

            Likewise, therefore, the cultures of human contextualization cannot and should not be considered as vital parts of the diversity composing the common good integral to humanity. Yet, this misinformed and misguided perceptual-interpretive mindset of contextualization increasingly prevails in Christian thinking, theology and practice, and further pervades higher theological education and learning. For example, contextualization has become the present-day paradigm for missions and proclaiming the gospel, as if to say “the end justifies the use of any means.” In theological studies, there is a growing movement to incorporate diverse contextualized views of theology, as if to assume that all these parts will contribute and add up to the whole understanding (as in synesis) necessary to know and understand God—not to mention as an antidote to Western theological hegemony. The results, however, have been composing merely hybrid theology and practice on a fragmentary basis, contrary to God’s whole basis in wholeness—results emerging from naïve acceptance or unexamined tolerance of the surrounding cultural context (as the church in Thyatira, (Rev 2:18-20).

            In most Christian thinking (whatever the level), assimilation into the surrounding context is arguably a given, since the common alternative of separation and/or isolation from the human context is considered either unrealistic or unreasonable for their theology and practice. Yet, assimilation into the surrounding cultural context comes at a price, which can only be paid by taking on that context’s culture for one’s identity and function (at least in its main aspects). Thus Christians seem to routinely embrace a prevailing culture, or at least readily take on elements of it, to define their identity and determine their function in key ways. But even paying that price comes with a further cost that includes the underpinning for cultures in the surrounding contexts of human life.

            From the beginning, the condition prevailing in the human context is reduced ontology and function. This is the common’s inescapable human condition that underpins the diverse cultures of our surrounding contexts, without exception in everyday life even though cultural theories may appear to be exceptions. Accordingly, this common condition is what human contextualization shapes, constructs and sustains unavoidably for those not clearly distinguished from the contextualized persons contextualized by and in that culture. In other words, the further cost for taking on that culture in our surrounding context is also to be reduced in ontology and function—perhaps with variations that simulate appearing unreduced. This subtle process evolves even inadvertently, even with good intentions for assimilating; nevertheless, the consequence is unmistakable:

Reduced ontology and function from God’s whole basis in wholeness, which for all Christians then becomes our default mode whenever we don’t consciously exercise our free will as subject-persons to choose to be different in identity and function from the contextualizing culture—that is, distinguished differently only in the image and likeness of whole-ly God.

So, the pivotal reality facing Christians in all contexts is the choice between these:

Either fall into the default mode of reduced ontology and function formed by the contextualizing culture of our surrounding context, or choose to counter that culture (not ideologically or merely pragmatically) in order to be distinguished both from that reducing culture and in whole ontology and function—because, unequivocally, the measure of culture we use will be the measure we get for our ontology and function, nothing more in our existential life and practic

            How we perceive insiders and outsiders is an ongoing consequential problem challenging for Christian diversity, the divergence of which effectively (1) widens the gate of the gospel and thus for claiming it, and (2) makes the way of following Jesus much easier—therefore, rendering the gospel’s integrity and discipleship’s significance contrary to the embodied Word (Mt 7:13-14). And the contextualized lens used for this comparative perception and value-measured interpretation is unremittingly confronted by the whole-ly Word. Further scrutinizing makes changing the nature of diversity essential, that is, the redemptive change of transformation, which will require a fundamental paradigm shift in theology and practice diversely contextualized.

 

 

Paradigm Shift in Theology and Practice

 

            When diversely contextualized theology and practice are scrutinized, it makes Christians and churches vulnerable in their surrounding contexts because scrutiny leads to changing how the surrounding culture is engaged. In the culture of God’s people, the Word is unequivocal: “I will appoint Peace as your overseer [pequddah, to bring change] and Righteousness your taskmaster” (Isa 60:17, cf. Ps 85:10), therefore, “I will make justice the measuring line and righteousness the plumb line (Isa 28:17, NIV, cf. Ps 89:14), in order for my people to be distinguished in the surrounding context so that you will not be contextualized by its culture.

            Allowing culture to be the main determinant for Christians at whatever level contradicts what Paul made imperative for Christians to be the only determinant in our life, both individually and collectively: “Let the uncommon peace of Christ rule in your persons from inner out, since as whole persons of one church body you were called to wholeness” (Col 3:15). This was nonnegotiable for Paul: “Rule” (brabeuo in the imperative) means to judge and arbitrate, thus rule as the only determinant for our persons and life together—that is, the Word’s whole basis in wholeness (the Word’s uncommon peace of Jn 14:27) as the sole (“the One and Only,” Jn 1:18) determinant for the new creation persons of God’s whole-ly church family.

            Furthermore, Christians allowing culture to assume primacy for operating as their main determinant in any way also conflicts with following Jesus not merely in our theology but notably in our practice—following where he is in the surrounding context. The relational path of Jesus is intrusive, intruding deeper into the surrounding human contexts, the contexts of the common, while integrally neither being contextualized by it nor tolerating it. By following Jesus, the first aspect of the prevailing (common’s) function that all his followers encounter while following him into these surrounding contexts is culture. Jesus’ intrusive relational path intersects with the pervasive workings of culture, and its influence emerges as the pivotal issues of Jesus’ engagement with culture.

            What Jesus ongoingly exposed by his intrusive engagement and consistently made imperative for all his followers is this: The critical need for the cultural shift that he embodied and enacted in order to incarnate being distinguished from that culture while in its context. He summarized this critical cultural shift in his intersection with the surrounding context of Judaism and its prevailing culture contextualizing the identity of God’s people in reduced ontology and function:

“Unless your righteousness—that is, the relational term for distinguishing the whole-integrity of who, what and how you are in your person and relationships—goes deeper than the prevailing righteousness of the leaders of that context, and thus is not distinguished from those practitioners of reductionism commonly associated with God, then you are not relationally involved in my realm of connection to enter the relational context of the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 5:20).

The perceptual-interpretive mindset for this critical cultural shift does not emerge as long as its primary determinant subtly remains the culture of a surrounding context. So, how did Jesus embody and enact the cultural shift critical for us to incarnate being distinguished as his followers?

            How Jesus engaged a culture in a particular context was always first with his own culture. Put in relational terms, Jesus always looked at culture theologically because that was his identity: the whole of who, what and how he was in the relational context and process of the whole-ly God. On the one hand, this was not unusual since engaging another culture from one’s own culture is an assumption by which all persons engage a different culture. Yet, on the other hand, Jesus only engaged a culture on his whole basis in wholeness; and we should never assume that his ongoing engagement was not so and thus with anything less at times. More specifically, the Jewish Jesus engaged the Jewish culture but he was not assimilated in that culture. His whole identity was uncommon even to Jewish culture. Therefore, these are assumptions of our own that we have to understand and account for, even as we seek to further understand and more deeply follow Jesus, along with his culture.

            The significance of all this for both our theology and practice is that Jesus integrally (1) embodied the whole-ly theological trajectory of God vulnerably into the human context, and (2) enacted his uncommon relational path in surrounding contexts only on his whole basis in wholeness. What he embodied cannot be separated from what he enacted; and what he embodied and enacted are distinguished only by how he embodied and enacted his identity and function in surrounding contexts in order to be whole-ly incarnated. Any separation causes fragmentation of wholeness, which Christian diversity is responsible for healing.

            As Jesus embodied God’s communicative action in the contexts of the world, he always enacted God’s relational language with the language of love. Therefore, Jesus did not engage culture “to condemn” (krino, to discriminate between good and evil) the identity it generates, “but to make whole” (sozo, Jn 3:17) its life and practice influenced by reductionism. By the nature of its source, reductionism has always functioned against the whole since creation in the primordial garden. The reductionism intrinsic in culture specifically involved the ontology of the whole person created in the image of the whole-ly God for the relationships together created in likeness of the relational ontology of the Trinity, thus which are necessary in conjoint function to be whole.

            Along with his identity as the light, Jesus’ full humanity as the Son of man also fully affirms this creation. By the earthly human life made evident in Jesus’ whole person, human life is sanctified (made whole-ly) in a qualitatively distinct relational practice that is imperative for all his followers to live and experience to be whole as God’s family (as he prayed, Jn 17:19). Here again we see the importance of the cultural shift to the uncommon. Furthermore, their whole-ly life and practice is necessary to be able to live whole in the surrounding cultural context for the world to “believe” (trust) and “know” (experience) that the whole-ly God is extended to them in the relational language of love in order to be part of, and thus no longer “to be apart” from (as he further prayed, Jn 17:21-23). Only the uncommon intrusion of this ontology and function distinguishes God’s whole family in the world, and it would only be uncommon on the basis of whole ontology and function.

            The whole of Jesus, therefore, functioned to engage culture intrusively in the surrounding context for the following purpose: (1) redefine its influence from reductionism, (2) transform its counter-relational work of reductionism, and (3) make whole the human relational condition “to be apart” from God’s whole. His purpose, however, could not be fulfilled if he assimilated into the surrounding culture, but only if he accommodated (not adapted or isolated) his identity and function in that cultural context without letting it have determining primacy. Being accommodated and not assimilated in our identity and function as his followers is a critical distinction for the cultural shift to be a relational reality in any surrounding context.

 

Jesus’ Integral Approach

 

            Jesus’ engagement of culture for his purpose to be, live and make whole involved an irreducible relational process; integrally, this whole relational process was specific to the uncommon relational context of his identity/ontology and function in the whole-ly God. The dynamic involvement of this integral relational process cannot be categorized by typologies of the relation of Jesus and culture. The classic typology of Richard Niebuhr, for example, is of initial interest, yet this is a static framework insufficient to account for Jesus’ intrusion on culture.[13] This includes variations or refinements of his typology.[14] The dynamic relational involvement of Jesus in the surrounding contexts of the world was an ongoing process of engaging culture both to be whole and to make whole, which also required being vulnerable with his person and intrusive in his relationships in order to make qualitative relational connection with those contextualized by culture.

            A different framework is needed to account for the multifaceted nature of this process and to understand the whole of Jesus’ various actions engaging culture, which then also points to the need for a new perceptual-interpretive mindset. This involves three issues that Jesus ongoingly addressed to help us define why and how he engaged culture and aspects of it. Basic to his approach, Jesus vulnerably involved his whole person in the life and practice of a culture to function for the invariable and thus nonnegotiable purpose to be whole and to make whole. Therefore, the integrating theme “to be whole” defined his actions engaging culture, which were contingent on one or more of three qualifying issues involving a culture’s life and practice:

  1. Compatibility, or congruence, “to be whole”—thus, there is no tension or conflict with the life and practice of a culture, and in this consonance further relational involvement is for deeper development of the whole.
     
  2. Partial overlapping areas “to be whole”—some areas and/or practices in a culture are affirmed as part of God’s general revelation and common grace, and what is basic to humanity as God’s creation; thus this acceptance allows room for flexibility in some secondary differences to cultivate and nurture the whole, but other areas and practices are in tension or conflict “to be whole” and, nonnegotiably, still need to be redefined, transformed and made whole.
     
  3. Incompatibility “to be whole”—thus, there is conflict, not merely tension, with no room for flexibility in dissonant differences; therefore, this dissonant situation/condition is nonnegotiable and needs to be redeemed to be made whole.

            All cultures involve more than one of these qualifying issues, and engaging various aspects of a culture’s life and practice usually involves an interaction of these qualifying issues. Culture then cannot be responded to in its surrounding context with a predetermined set of behavioral responses—which tends to seek merely the conformity of others—but rather only by being predisposed with the relational involvement to be whole and to make whole. This is how Jesus engaged culture and why.   

            In the process of cultural engagement, Jesus in full identity appears to transcend culture (cf. Niebuhr’s categories, “Christ against culture”), yet while always relationally involved in the surrounding cultural context (cf. “Christ in paradox” or “Christ of culture”) with what amounts to his minority identity (cf. “Christ above culture”) to make it whole (cf. “Christ the transformer of culture”). The relational interaction of his full identity with his minority identity (signifying his whole-ly identity) integrally constitutes the qualitative distinction necessary to be distinguished whole in the surrounding cultural context, which is indistinguishable without also being uncommon (cf. Lev 10:10). Without Jesus’ uncommon whole basis in uncommon wholeness, there is neither basis to make whole culture’s life and practice, nor the significance to be compelling for the diversity of the human condition.

            The ongoing process of engaging culture both to be whole and to make whole involves this integral process of vulnerable and intrusive relational involvement unique to Jesus’ relational path into the surrounding contexts. Yet, even the term ‘relational’ is insufficient for what Jesus embodied and how he enacted his identity and function. Relational has become a more visible adjective (perhaps buzzword) used today for theology and practice, but the word’s increasing usage is not because of the critical cultural shift essential to be relational in how Jesus was and continues to be with his whole-ly person.

            The depth of his relational involvement is most evident in how he was engaged to counter the reductionism composing culture in the human context from the beginning, and to neutralize and transform culture’s determinant influence. The embodied Word ongoingly communicates to us clarification and correction in his relational language of love in order to be together intimately in his realm of connection. Yet, whenever his relational love language is transposed to referential language, it loses the relational significance of how the Word speaks of love and enacts it. Furthermore, be alerted: When he speaks for himself rather than others speaking for him, he speaks in tough-love relational language, thus neither idealized nor romanticized. Therefore, it is imperative for all of us to “consider carefully how you listen” (Lk 8:18), and “pay attention closely to what you hear” (Mk 4:24).

            We cannot be followers of Jesus without following his whole-ly person on his intrusive relational path into our contexts and engaging those cultures as he embodied and enacted—nothing less and no substitutes for his uncommon whole basis in wholeness. Therefore, the critical cultural shift is not optional for us but, simply, essential to “Follow me” because to follow him is always on his relational terms and never revised by our terms, even with good intentions. 

            Jesus never assimilated into a surrounding context by and in its culture. He always accommodated his identity and function in that cultural context without compromise. Thereby, Jesus’ engagement of culture in the surrounding context was always in congruence with, and thus the definitive extension of, the whole-ly God’s thematic relational response of love to the human condition to make whole his creation. This is the irreducible and nonnegotiable function of the whole-ly God’s relational work of grace only for new covenant relationship together in love, which extends into the diversity of his church family on his intrusive relational path.

            Therefore, this relational outcome will extend into the diversity of Christians and churches that make no assumptions about the culture of their surrounding context, and thus function in relation to that culture by the three qualifying issues. When the conscious resolve of this ongoing relational process does not clearly distinguish the minority (uncommon) identity of Christian and church ontology and function, Christians and churches by default become co-opted by prevailing cultures and thereby seduced in their theology and practice to follow an incomplete (fragmentary, not whole) Jesus on a different path—the pivotal issue facing Peter at his footwashing and his post-resurrection interaction with Jesus about the language of love.

            Critically then, “Amend your ways and your doings from inner out and let me be involved with you in this surrounding context…. For if you truly undergo the critical cultural shift, then I will be relationally involved with you in this context together” (Jer 7:3-7).

 

 

The Culture of Our Theology and Practice

 

            It is imperative that Christians discover their perceptual-interpretive culture, so they can understand the mindset used to identify who they are and also whose they are. The same perceptual-interpretive culture is the main determinant for their theology and practice, which overlaps with and interacts variably with diverse traditions (cf. Mk 7:8).

            Christian theology and practice have long been dominated by Western culture and related traditions. The main determinant for this still-existing condition is culture, not merely Western interpretations of theology. This prevailing culture certainly has not been neutral and has been obviously consequential for global Christianity—just as all cultures are neither neutral nor inconsequential. Whether in the global North or global South, regional and local contexts’ cultures have the same effect on theology and practice, even though a southern context may compete with the West to be the main determinant. Regardless of where, the pivotal issue is: Whose culture determines our theology and practice, and thereby, does our theology and practice call for the critical cultural shift embodied and enacted by Jesus?

            Christians outside the global North would rightfully say “Yes, indeed!” Yet, those Christians cannot substitute their own culture as recourse for their theology and practice, that is, without also hearing Jesus rightfully and emphatically say “Yes, indeed!” in calling for the correct cultural shift.

            The subtle consequence of any and all perceptual-interpretive cultures in the surrounding context is to displace followers of Jesus to a different path than Jesus’ relational path—just like those on the road to Emmaus (cf. Mt 7:13). To be on a different path than Jesus has major consequences. In contrast to what Jesus embodied in his whole person and enacted in how he functioned whole-ly, persons are reshaped from inner out to outer in, and relationships are reconstructed accordingly with secondary matter to substitute for what is primary; and on this reduced basis, church practice also is established and extended in the academy. We cannot ignore the role culture plays in these consequences because its seductive influence is far-reaching on shaping our person, our relationships, and our churches and academy.

            Consider further, it is vital for us to examine church practice of worship and what determines its shape, including contemporary worship and music—as the popular church in Sardis had to be awakened to (Rev 3:1-2). How congruent is this worship with who and what the Father seeks in those worshipping him (Jn 4:23-24)? And how much does our worship correlate to what Jesus critiqued of worship on his whole basis in wholeness (Mt 15:8-9)? We cannot assume that the seductive influence of culture is not present, has not diminished our worship,[15] and has not co-opted us from the primary, the primacy of reciprocal relationship together without the veil, and indeed has not removed us from the intrusive relational path of Jesus. Such an assumption mirrors the assumption from the primordial garden that “you will not surely be reduced.”

            Besides the global church, this also raises a serious challenge to the multicultural church today—wherever it might exist or be considered as the church model—and whether the basis for its composition needs the critical cultural shift. More urgently, what prevails in your theology and practice, the secondary or the primary?

            The palpable Word with the Spirit corrected the church in Thyatira to expose the reality that “you tolerate at best and assimilate at worst the surrounding cultural context and form a subtle hybrid in your theology and practice, notably with epistemological illusions of the Word and ontological simulations of his identity and function” (Rev 2:20). Then the Word’s perceptual-interpretive lens was clarified: “All the churches (including the academy) need to know that I am the one who searches minds and hearts, and I will respond to each of you accordingly” (Rev 2:23).

            Whenever and wherever Christian diversity is contextualized in a surrounding context, its identity and function mirror that culture. Accordingly, whatever the distinctions of Christian diversity, they also mirror the inequality and inequities of the surrounding context to compromise the integrity of Christian theology and practice. Therefore, indeed, the Word makes “justice the measuring line and righteousness the plumb line” for the diversity of our theology and practice in order to distinguish their consonance from dissonance, whereby they integrally with the Word “will proclaim justice to human diversity…until he brings justice to victory” (Mt 12:18,20). And the gospel we claim and proclaim must be composed on this irreducible and nonnegotiable basis.

            Yet, the good news of the gospel has been reported in various ways, with selective facts, and with nuances of its truth. In this historical process, the gospel has even become variable good news composed by alternative facts and virtual news that have augmented the gospel outside the boundaries of its theological trajectory and relational path (as in Mt 7:13-14). For example, popular today is the good news composing forms of a prosperity gospel. What is rarely reported in these contexts, however, is the bad news of the gospel. Obviously, no one wants to hear bad news, especially if we have good news to focus on. As a counter-alternative to such a selective gospel, some would consider a social gospel as reporting the difficult part of this news. Yet, the bias of a social gospel also has distorted or fragmented the whole gospel in a similar way with its typically reduced theological anthropology and weak view of sin, such that it too is not on the same theological trajectory and relational path as Jesus (cf. Mt 7:21-23).

            The conflation of the gospel with variations in one way or another has either rendered the primary significance of the gospel to a secondary significance (by inflating or reducing it), or has revised the truth (embodied Truth) of the gospel to a fragmentary reality. Either consequence lacks the whole theological trajectory and the uncommon relational path of Jesus’ gospel of peace, which are irreducible and nonnegotiable (Num 6:26; Jn 14:27; 16:33; Eph 6:14-17).

            It is within this historical process that our traditions have formed as they evolve with culture. Thus, the traditions of God’s people have been variable in significance, the state of which should be neither routinely accepted nor rejected using a bias. The critical issue for tradition has been to blur the distinction between God’s relational language and human referential language—the former only for communication in relationship by Subject God and the latter merely to transmit information about Object God (the object of faith). Referential language is composed by the information formed (not necessarily created) from defining efforts of self-determination, which transposes God’s relational terms for relationship together (i.e. God’s rule of law) to an end in itself (e.g. Mk 7:1-4). This quantified information then loses its relational purpose and process by (1) being reduced to doctrine with assumptions about God’s authority, and (2) being observed (or conformed to) under the protective image, illusion or delusion as God’s rule of law, with a variable bias composing its related Rule of Faith (as in Isa 29:13; Mk 7:5-9,13).

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

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

            Indeed, the relational path of Jesus’ gospel intruded on the traditions of God’s people, “and his own people did not accept him” (Jn 1:10). Even though their traditions included enough similarity to accept Jesus, their theology and practice were incompatible with Jesus. The incompatibility of prevailing religious tradition was ironic but not surprising, and should alert us to existing traditions today. The gospel Jesus embodied was right for the heart of human life, and he enacted integrally the bad and good news to make right the human condition. His gospel is incompatible with injustice, and their tradition (and those today in likeness) lacked justice as defined by the relational terms of God’s authority and rule of law—regardless of their conformity in referential terms. Therefore, their Rule of Faith could not embrace the whole gospel enacted by Jesus, which exposed the injustice of their tradition. In his gospel, accordingly, Jesus clarified any misconceptions and corrected any illusions with the undeniable paradox:

“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring common peace, but a sword….” (Mt 10:34-36)

The bad news of the gospel not only antecedes the good news but necessarily qualifies what the good news is that is essential for whole justice and uncommon peace—the whole-ly relational outcome of Jesus’ gospel.[16]

            The status quo in many sociocultural contexts is maintained by an honor-shame code of behavior that controls persons to function mainly by avoiding shame. Traditionally, however, the shame in an honor-shame framework has primarily an outer-in focus and thus revolves around secondary matters. Though this focus assumes it has primary consequences of being considered bad, wrong, unfair or unjust, it is insufficient shame to get to the roots of the human condition. The depth of shame (bosh) from the primordial garden is what has composed and will always compose the status quo of human life at all levels of its human condition. Bosh signifies the primary consequence from reductionism that is intrinsic to the common denominator of injustice. This depth is the shame of the status-ing in quo that the bad news of the gospel exposes in the status quo’s oft-subtle lack of just-nection. Only just-nection constitutes the right order of relationship together created by Subject God for subject persons having the right relational connection in the Trinity’s likeness—the relational connection required for justice of the human order.

            The status quo represents the existing state of the human relational condition in general and our human relational condition in particular. In our surrounding contexts, there emerges a conventional thinking (wisdom) that establishes (formally or informally) a collection of normative values and practices, which explicitly or implicitly maintain the existing state of our human relational condition with this collective conscience. These norms define the parameters for how to think, see human life, and act daily. Since they are based on limited knowledge or biased information, however, status-ing in quo limits how we think, distorts how we see, and constrains how we act. (Recall my experience with a Western gospel.) Depending on the surrounding context, that particular status quo enforces human rights to the extent that its normative framework allows.

            The shame of the status quo emerges when God’s created rights are denied and those privileged rights are prevented—in spite of the extent of permitted rights in surrounding contexts—which is consequential for persons fulfilling their inherent human need, including even being seduced by illusions of virtual fulfillment (as in Gen 3:6). This variable condition is the consequence whenever God’s rights are reduced and/or those privileged rights are renegotiated—both of which evolve from persons in reduced ontology and function, those comprising the status quo. Whatever the variant state of this existing condition, the status quo consists of the (our) human condition needing to be made right and thus of persons (individually and collectively) needing to be transformed at all levels of human life.

            The good news of the gospel alone is insufficient to address the status quo. The reality is that the proclamation of the good news has made little change (if any) on status-ing in quo—likely because an existing cultural-political bias doesn’t perceive the status quo as needing change. Only the bad news of the gospel exposes the shame of the status quo and its need to be changed at its core. This integrated news is the whole gospel that targets the common denominator of injustice to raise up the just-nection required to fulfill the inherent human need. The gospel’s relational outcome enforces the God-vested and privileged rights of all persons, all of which elude the status-ing in quo in practice if not also in theology.

            This was Nicodemus’ awakening when he pursued the gospel as a key member of the status quo (Jn 3:1-15). His affirmation of God’s authority and rule of law was composed by referential language, so he was shocked by Jesus’ relational language that he needed to be transformed in order to be right under God’s rule. Yet, his normative framework limited how he thought and distorted how he saw Jesus’ imperative for him to be transformed, making the gospel incredulous for him: “How can these things be?” Jesus shook up the status quo with the bad news to expose his shame: “You are a teacher of the status quo and yet you do not understand these things?” The bad news opened Nicodemus to his shame so that he could receive the good news to make right his human condition and be transformed to the whole justice and uncommon peace of the new creation.

            The status quo involves the most subtle extension of the original shame of the inaugural persons in creation. They shifted from the primacy of their whole persons in relationship together in likeness of Subject God (“both naked and were not ashamed,” Gen 2:25) to the secondary of their persons from outer in, which thereby reduced them to human distinctions in fragmenting comparative relations (“they were naked and covered the primary with the secondary in order to hide their shame,” Gen 3:7,10). This shame breaks the just-nection created in God’s likeness and thereby disables persons from fulfilling their inherent human need. Any yearning for its fulfillment or dissatisfaction from being unfulfilled is readily distracted or suspended by the preoccupation with normative values and practices of the status quo—ongoingly rendering persons and relationships in virtual illusions.

            In Christian diversity, the shame of the status quo is subtle and rarely acknowledged, because its normative framework is advocated, supported or sustained with complicity by the majority (notably a moral majority). Yet, the prevailing shame of persons in reduced ontology and function, who lack justice in the human order of relationships, is always consequential for denying or squandering the vested and privileged rights of God’s rule of law. And the bad news of Jesus’ gospel always holds the status-ing in quo accountable and intrusively exposes its shame of broken just-nection, so that the good news of the whole of justice can emerge and its uncommon peace will unfold—with nothing less and no substitutes in our theology and practice as the sentinels of human life.

            The reality of the status quo facing us, and hopefully the reality challenging us to change, is the normative framework shaping or even composing our theology and practice. For example, what forms the identity of persons and their function in daily life (not just at church), and where do we get our model for everyday relationships? Conventional sources for these shape how we see and think about right-wrong, good-bad, fair-unfair, and just-unjust. The reality unavoidably facing us and challenging us is this: How we live everyday either falls within the normative framework of the status quo or claims the embodied Word’s whole-ly gospel—the latter then countering the status-ing in quo of the former, which Nicodemus would testify shakes up the status quo at the core of its theology and practice. In other words, we cannot claim the whole-ly gospel without the bad news, and to only assume we have claimed the good news is to live within the status quo of our theology and practice—which can be the status-ing in quo in the spectrum encompassing both conservatives and liberals in the global North and South.

            The Word’s gospel distinguishes the depth of just-nection and, conversely, just-nection distinguishes the heart of Jesus’ gospel. This just-nection was constituted by the Word in the beginning, and the Word embodied and enacted the integrated gospel in relational response to the common denominator of injustice to transform its shame to just-nection (Jn 1:1-3,14). Those of the status quo, however, could not claim the good news because they wouldn’t receive the bad news (Jn 1:4-5, 10-11). Again and again, status-ing in quo involves the subtle ongoing extension of the recurring shame from the primordial garden.

            Therefore, Jesus’ gospel challenges how we think and see in our life, and it requires us to have the mindset to interpret daily life and the perceptual lens to see everyday life in its true context. This mindset and lens involve having the following understanding of the human person and the sin of reductionism that emerged from the primordial garden and evolves today in the status quo:

Human persons and their reductionism extend from the primordial garden in a pseudo-dialectic that constructs the normative thinking, perception and action composing the status quo, which unfolds in three steps.

  1. The pivotal juncture when persons in just-nection become disconnected from their primacy in right relationship together as whole persons from inner out (as in Gen 2:18,25; 3:7).
     
  2. The point of disjunction when persons take an opposite (contrary, counter or conflict) recourse in simulating relationship merely by association rather than depth of relational involvement, whereby they substitute virtual connections to blunt or divert the shame of relational disconnection (extending Gen 3:7-10).
     
  3. This pseudo-dialectic, however, doesn’t reconcile the first two steps in a new synthesis but results in a different human order from creation, a mutating variant difference in which (1) persons are reduced from the inner-out primary to the outer-in secondary of life and (2) relationships are fragmented by persons’ outer-in distinctions and stratified according to the order’s inescapable comparative process that consigns persons to a scale of better-less, desirable-undesirable, good-bad—all of which converge to form the normative values and practices framing the status quo in human inequality with human inequity.

            The normative framework of the status quo—which pervades (if not prevails in) our theology and practice—biases our mindset to interpret daily life and distorts our lens to see everyday life in the existential reality of its existing context, so that it keeps us from the true context of human life and its essential order integrally (1) created by the Word, (2) embodied by the Word in relational response to the (our) human condition, and (3) enacted by the Word with the bad news-good news gospel to reconcile persons to the primacy of just-nection. Just-nection is the only relational outcome from the intrusive relational path of Jesus’ integrated gospel, without which is a different gospel having no significance except for the status quo (cf. Gal 1:6-7).

            The consequences of Christian diversity are unavoidable and will continue to evolve, notably with cultural traditions still assumed as the primary determinant for Christian identity and function over the whole-ly Word, which is relegated to a secondary source for their practice. Until we willfully and humbly shift in our perceptual-interpretive mindset and thereby vulnerably change the diversely contextualized theology and practice, the status quo will persist to render the gospel fragmentary and transpose its new creation into Christian identity distinctions of the old.

 

 

The Secondary or the Primary

 

            The Jewish Christians of the early church perceived themselves to be insiders and Gentiles as outsiders. There were obvious differences between them such as ethnicity and language (e.g. Aramaic or Greek), but these were only secondary distinctions. Nevertheless, Jewish Christians considered their distinctions primary, whereby they imposed their cultural-religious practice on Gentile converts, to which they had to conform in order to belong as Christians. This became the pivotal issue in the early church, which the early church leaders needed to resolve or their diversity would be divisive and thus divergent from the embodied Word (Acts 15).

            Whenever the primary is not distinguished from the secondary, then what’s primary to God gets conflated with what’s secondary for humans. This displaces what’s primary for God’s people with the comparative distinctions prevailing in surrounding contexts. Human distinctions were the critical issue underlying the problems in the church that Paul faced, fought against, and worked for transformation. As discussed earlier, Paul confronted Peter face to face for distinction-making in the church that disabled the measuring line of justice in the church; the consequences (1) enabled Christians to practice injustice such as inequality and inequity, and thereby (2) counter the bad news and contradict the good news of the whole gospel.

            On the essential basis of the Word’s rule of law for human life and its order—embodied in the narrow Way, the qualitative-relational Truth and the whole-ly Life—God made no distinctions in the ontology and function of persons in the qualitative image and relational likeness of the Trinity. This is the only basis that distinguishes the church in its whole identity and function, the existential reality of which is fulfilled just in the primacy of relationship together vulnerably equalized without distinctions (as in Acts 15:9). Christian leaders who practice anything less and promote any substitutes—even while assuming those alternatives are biblical—serve effectively as shepherds functioning as disablers of the justice created by God and, at the same time, as enablers of injustice composing the common norms of everyday life, thus as shepherds who scatter rather than gather (Mt 12:30). The prevailing reality of life in all human contexts is this evolving condition:

Human distinction-making has always been the underlying issue at the roots of injustice and a prime symptom indicating that the bad news in surrounding contexts is being absorbed as acceptable, appropriate and thus normative.

Therefore, Christian leaders notably need to recognize the presence of such disparate counter-productive workings in their theology and practice, or be subject to subtly falling into becoming shepherds and enablers of injustice—those who are disablers of justice even with their good intentions, as Peter demonstrated.

            Just as social media users become readily preoccupied and then easily entrenched in the secondary, Christians and churches become occupied, preoccupied and entrenched in the secondary, both in their theology and practice—I, myself, frequently get distracted by the secondary. This secondary focus and bias are evident most in the distinctions Christians and churches make in, among and between themselves, just as the early disciples appeared obsessed with having the distinction as “the greatest.”

            Whatever the distinctions used by Christians and churches to compose their identity, how those distinctions function can only be secondary at best. Since God makes no distinctions between us and the relational outcome of the whole gospel equalizes distinctions (as Paul made conclusive, Gal 3:26-28; Col 3:10-11, cf. 2 Cor 5:16), then we are all faced with the crucial question urgently needing our response: In the existential diversity of global Christianity, what do our distinctions actually mean for our theology and practice? And as we vulnerably respond to this question, we come to a crossroads that faces us with the pivotal question imperative for us to answer: What do we do with all the distinctions diversely composing Christian diversity?[17]

 


 

[1] For a full discussion on the issues of biblical interpretation, see my study Interpretation Integrated in ‘the Whole-ly Way’: The Integral Education and Learning of Knowing and Understanding God (Bible Hermeneutics Study, 2019). Online at http://www.4X12.org.

[2] Discussions of these interpretive positions in hermeneutics are found in Craig Bartholomew, Colin Greene and Karl Moller, eds., After Pentecost: Language and Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), and in Craig Bartholomew, C. Stephen Evans, Mary Healy and Murray Rae, eds., “Behind” the Text: History and Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003).

[3] A discussion of the relative composition of social history is found in Bryan D. Palmer, Descent into Discourse: The Reification of Language and the Writing of Social History (Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 1990).

[4] Murray Rae, “Theological Interpretation and Historical Criticism,” in Craig G. Bartholomew and Heath A. Thomas, eds., A Manifesto for Theological Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016), 96.

[5] For a discussion integrating hermeneutics and exegesis, see Matthew R. Malcolm, From Hermeneutics to Exegesis: The Trajectory of Biblical Interpretation (Nashville, TN: B & H Academic, 2018).

[6] David I. Starling discusses how the biblical authors themselves help us learn how best to interpret the Bible, in Hermeneutics as Apprenticeship: How the Bible Shapes Our Interpretative Habits and Practices (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016).

[7] From Parade Magazine, “Cartoon Parade,” 12/8/2015.

[8] I have expanded discussion of the Trinity in relational language in The Face of the Trinity: The Trinitarian Essential for the Whole of God and Life (Trinity Study, 2016). Online at http://www.4X12.org.

[9] This analysis of the process of globalization is undertaken by David Helm, Anthony McGrew, David Goldblatt and Jonathan Perrraton, Global Transitions: Politics, Economics and Culture (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1999). See also Peter Heslam, ed., Globalization and the Good (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004).

[10] Vinoth Ramachandra engages this discussion in Subverting Global Myths: Theology and the Public Issues Shaping Our World (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008).

[11] A discussion of U.S. empire building and the role of evangelicalism is undertaken in Bruce Ellis and Peter Goodwin Heltzel, eds., Evangelicals and Empire: Christian Alternatives to the Political Status Quo (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2008).

[12] This discussion of gender is made integrally by Kary A. Kambara, The Gender Equation in Human Identity and Function: Examining Our Theology and Practice, and Their Essential Equation (Gender Study: 2018). Online at https://www.4X12.org.

[13]  H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture 50th-anniversary ed. (N.Y.: Harper San Francisco, 2001).

[14]  See, for example, Glen H. Stassen, D.M. Yeager, John Howard Yoder, Authentic Transformation: A New Vision of Christ and Culture, (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996), and also Gordon Lynch, Understanding Theology and Popular Culture, (Australia: Blackwell Publishing, 2005), 93-110.

[15] To better understand the shaping influence of culture on worship, see Kary A. Kambara, A Theology of Worship: ‘Singing’ a New Song to the Lord (2011). Online at http://4X12.org. See also Hermeneutic of Worship Language: Understanding Communion with the Whole of God (Worship Language Study, 2013). Online at http://4X12.org.

[16] The issues for justice and peace are fully discussed in my study Jesus’ Gospel of Essential Justice: The Human Order from Creation through Complete Salvation (Justice Study, 2018). Online at http://www.4X12.org.

[17] Jarvis J. Williams has a limited answer to this question in Redemptive Kingdom Diversity: A Biblical Theology of the People of God (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2021).

 

© 2022 T. Dave Matsuo

back to top    home