The Diversity of the Integral Gospel Repurposing Diversity to Re-image the Global Church |
Chapter 5 Repurposing Diversity
|
||
Sections
Diversity’s Purpose for Following Jesus The Journey Repurposing Discipleship Diverse Consonant Voices of One Coherent Witness |
||
|
“Believe me, the hour is coming when your people will worship the Father neither in your diverse way nor in their diverse way.” “But the hour is now here, when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth beyond diversity.” John 4:21,23
“My peace be with you. As the Father has sent me into the world, so I send you into the world.” John 20:21
Righteousness will go before him and will make the way for his steps. Psalm 85:13
When Peter rejected what the embodied Word vulnerably revealed to him about the Messiah, he steadfastly claimed the primacy of his interpretive lens that was biased by his religious culture (Mt 16:21-23). When Peter denied the embodied Word from vulnerably washing his feet for intimate relational connection, he rigidly held onto the customs of his sociocultural context—the contextualized bias of which prevented him from seeing Jesus’ whole person and thus from being relationally involved with Jesus in a new way (Jn 13:6-8). When Peter refused to be exposed to and partake of anything he perceived to be divergent, Peter strongly opposed the Word’s imperative because of both his contextualized and commonized bias that avoided contact with the practice of human diversity (Acts 10:9-15). How would you assess Peter’s biases? How prevalent do you think that the source of these biases also influences Christian theology and practice today—either to avoid diversity like Peter or to promote diversity? By changing Peter’s perceptual-interpretive framework and lens—a struggling process for Peter—the Word was also integrally repurposing Peter’s own diversity and his practice regarding others’ diversity.
The core of human diversity (both created and evolved) is composed of different ethnicities, languages, domestic contexts and experiences in life (cf. Gen 10:5,20, 31-32). But at the heart of that life are persons and relationships that should not be defined and determined by their different distinctions. Yet, God never eliminates the diversity associated with persons and relationships. From the beginning, God’s covenant people was designed and enacted to be composed with this diversity; the pivotal change of Abram to Abraham clearly distinguished God’s people as composed by “a multitude of nations” (Gen 17:1-7) God made this relational imperative for Abraham to enact: “Walk before me and be blameless” (tamiym), that is, be whole in your person and relationships, without fragmenting distinctions.[1] Abraham’s whole person enacted this relational imperative with his relational response of trusting God (the relational significance of believing), which distinguished Abraham’s righteousness (Gen 15:6, cf. Rom 4:1-3). This pivotal change, however, has not been enacted in the essential purpose that God constituted for the diversity of God’s global people to be one covenant family together. Therefore, the existential purpose of diversity that has evolved necessitates transposing diversity to God’s essential purpose. As was necessary for Peter, the initial change requires transposing the contextualized and commonized biases influenced by tradition (both cultural and religious). This initial change of transposing tradition is essential in order to fulfill God’s imperative purpose for the diversity of global Christianity, so that it constitutes the whole-ly integrity of God’s covenant family—not the notions of the global church that pervade theology and practice. God strategically took action to fulfill the covenant promise to Abraham as “the father of a multitude of nations,” the action which was fulfilled by the embodied Word. God’s strategic action is summarized in a key interaction that revealed God’s strategic movement in human diversity. In a simple moment of everyday life, Jesus made uncommon connection with a common other in the surrounding context (Jn 4:4-27). This Samaritan woman was likely also marginalized by her own ethnic cohorts, because she was married five times and currently living with another man. Jewish cultural and religious tradition made obvious that Jesus’ action was counter to prevailing theology and practice—as evident by his disciples’ reaction (v.27)—which deferred to ethnic and gender distinctions at the priceless expense of the qualitative heart of persons and relationships in their created primacy. Jesus’ strategic action, however, continued to reveal vulnerably who he was and what he embodied, and thereby his relational purpose:
1.
To repurpose the existing diversity, notably
with transposing the diversity defined and determined by cultural and
religious tradition. 2. To restore persons and relationships to the primacy of their heart in wholeness without distinctions that reduce and fragment them at the core of how God created them. Therefore, the embodied Word connected face to face with this outlier with the relational imperative to “trust me relationally” to repurpose the divergent distinctions as practiced in your diverse tribe, so that you can fully embrace the heart and wholeness (“spirit and truth”) of who you are and whose you are, belonging to as an integral member of God’s family: “Trust me…your people will worship the Father neither in your diverse way nor in their diverse way”; thus, the time for turn-around change “is now here, when the true worshippers will worship the Father in heart and wholeness, without the fragmentation from diversity.” In this strategic narrative, her ethnicity, gender and language were not negated but transposed from the outer in to the inner out, so that those distinctions were repurposed from the primary to the secondary for defining her identity and determining her function. On this transposed basis of her diversity, her repurposed person trusted the Word for this relational outcome, whereby she vulnerably shared the whole gospel with her repurposed tribe (4:28-30, 39-42). In the relational embodying of God’s strategic action, the Word transposed prevailing cultural and religious traditions, whereby he repurposed their distinctions for identity and function to, at best, a secondary significance that would neither reduce nor fragment persons and relationships from the primacy of their qualitative heart and wholeness from inner out—the primary that the Father seeks for the relational involvement from persons, peoples, tribes and nations composing the diversity of God’s covenant family. The embodied Word fulfilled God’s covenant promise and constituted the relational reality of its relational outcome for “a multitude of nations,” whose diverse distinctions would no longer define their identity and determine their function because “God, who knows the human heart…has made no distinction between them and us” (Acts 15:8-9). This strategic narrative embodying the gospel and the tactical narrative of the early church (in Acts 15) are transforming for the diversity composing God’s people—the covenant family of a multitude of persons, peoples, tribes and nations. The pivotal changes in these narratives transposing tradition and repurposing distinctions integrally center on the diversity issues in worship and who is given the Holy Spirit. If the Word embodied changes in what is fundamental to worship and the work of the Holy Spirit, then what other diversity issues could you think of that should not be transposed and their distinctions repurposed? So, for example, if you are privileged to have a dominant identity as Christian Jews in the 1st century, or if you bear a marginalized identity as the Samaritan woman, then what changes would the Word make essential for your distinctions and related matters of diversity? The early disciples demonstrated the need for change, which is evident in the limits and constraints of their perceptual-interpretive lens due to a contextualized bias. In this narrative, their bias continued to reduce Jesus’ person to the outer in (extending from v.27), who needed to “eat something” (4:31). But, Jesus transposed their distinction-making and made it imperative for their lens to look beyond their bias (the significance of eparate, v.35), in order for them to repurpose their diversity according to the interdependence of key distinctions that serve to bring together diverse persons, peoples, tribes and nations in the wholeness of one family constituted by the Word (4:32-38). In this latter section of the strategic narrative, Jesus shifts to tactical action for the relational purpose to make whole both his followers and the discipleship in their theology and practice. Therefore, indeed, “the time is now here” for turn-around changes in Christian diversity in order to entrust our person’s identity and function to the whole-ly Word and Spirit, so that our persons and relationships will be distinguished whole-ly by embodying the Word’s gospel in likeness.
Diversity’s Purpose for Following Jesus
Persons follow Jesus for different reasons, and this diversity entails why it is necessary for the core process of repurposing Christian diversity. Even though discipleship could be stated in its theology, the actual practice of discipleship is typically omitted, ignored, understated or misapplied in Christian diversity. These practices are not by accident, rather they are the default practice of followers who don’t actually follow the embodied Word. Even when their theology may include the Word, the purpose of discipleship is either misunderstood or a malpractice because, in existential reality, it doesn’t truly follow the whole-ly Word. Whether in the global North or South, we all need to examine our purpose in following Jesus. We are at a critical stage in our practice of discipleship. To use the analogy between pop music and a pop quiz, each has a different meaning for “pop” that serves a different purpose, which cannot be conflated with each other. The diversity of discipleship, in effect, has become analogous to embracing a diversity of pop music, while assuming that such pop discipleship meets the standards of a biblical pop quiz. A pop quiz of the embodied Word, however, will reveal a different meaning and purpose of discipleship that cannot be conflated with any diversity of pop discipleship. For the embodied Word discipleship is fundamental, without reduction to anything less or negotiation with any substitutes, and thus with no redaction of the Word’s relational terms for discipleship. Yet, with many who identify with Jesus, the purpose of following him is diversified. This is not surprising but evident from the beginning of Jesus’ ministry embodying the whole gospel. A pop quiz may prove helpful in the learning process of discipleship.
After people experienced Jesus feeding the 5,000, many of them followed him (Jn 6:1-24). Why do you think they followed Jesus? Was it for a religious purpose, or was the purpose political? Jesus clarified their purpose for discipleship by exposing the truth that they followed him merely for the benefits—that is, benefits that would satisfy their diverse appetites (6:28). Whatever those appetites are, if following Jesus benefits for having them filled, this is a purpose worth pursuing. Such a self-serving purpose was demonstrated also by the church in Laodicea, whose self-serving identity was based on all the benefits the church had accumulated (Rev 3:14). This kind of purpose for discipleship underlies claiming a prosperity gospel, the proclamation of which has claimed a global diversity of followers. In the early movement of the Way (before the term Christian was used), an outlier named Simon became a follower (Acts 8:9-13). He was very attentive to his discipleship mentors and wanted to become just like them. Why do you think he became a follower? And what was his purpose to be like his mentors? For Simon, the Holy Spirit was an end in itself that served his means for status (Acts 8:14-19). Peter exposed Simon’s purpose and confronted him for the turn-around change needed for his heart, which Simon didn’t take responsibility for but subtly displaced on Peter (8:20-24). Status is more of an implicit purpose, unlike Simon’s explicitness, that many Christians have for discipleship, especially among leaders and those having more active roles. This purpose is demonstrated by the church in Sardis, whose ministry gained an esteemed status for them. But, the whole-ly Word set the record straight with a “Wake up!” call, because the work of their discipleship was not according to the wholeness of the Word’s relational terms and purpose for following him (Rev 3:1-2). Do you think the Word’s wake-up call applies to the underlying purpose many Christians have for their practice of discipleship? Whenever any discipleship has a performative purpose (even with the intention of serving), it follows a path of conformity for relevance in a surrounding context rather than following the relational path of the Word—a path wider and easier than the Word’s. Perhaps a performative purpose becomes as if discipleship is the stage in the theater of life’s diversity. Hence, gaining recognition on such a stage implies competition, which results in value disparities measuring diversity’s presentation of self. So, how many churches measure up to the church in Sardis, and what is their value otherwise? The path of discipleship conforming to the surrounding context is witnessed in an initial pivotal interaction that Jesus had with some of his devoted followers. The interaction will demonstrate how imperative it is for disciples to integrate their secondary involvements into the primary of their reciprocal involvement with Jesus, and thus not to allow their discipleship to be distracted, occupied, defined, shaped, preoccupied and determined by the reverse dynamic of anything less or any substitutes. Since this divergent dynamic is a common practice among Christians, it is indispensable for all Christians to integrate the secondary into the primary by ongoingly engaging the process of integrating priorities (PIP). In human life and practice, including for most Christians, the surrounding context (namely culture) commonly establishes the priorities of what is important, thus what should receive our primary attention. To the extent that our identity (even as disciples) is shaped and our function (even in discipleship) is determined subtly by these priorities, we have to recognize that we are products of our context and times—and are not engaging in PIP. This subtle defining dynamic became a source of contention between two of Jesus’ close followers (sisters Martha and Mary, Lk 10:38-42), whom he loved along with their brother Lazarus (cf. Jn 11:5). When defined by what they do, these sisters are commonly characterized as different types: Martha oriented to a life of activity and service, while Mary by a life of contemplation and worship. We get a deeper and different understanding of their persons as Jesus interacts with them face to face in relationship. How they function in relationship together reveals where they truly are, and also deepens our understanding of the relational significance of Jesus’ whole ontology and function. Their first interaction takes place because “Martha welcomed Jesus into her home” with his disciples during his later Judean ministry (Lk 10:38-42). The term for “welcomed him” (hypodechomai) denotes a distinct act of caring for them by Martha, which she apparently initiated; also, identifying it as “her home” is unusual when there is a male in the family. Her hospitable and kind action is no doubt well received by this likely tired and hungry group, and could easily have been the basis for significant fellowship. But fellowship is a context in which the function of relationship is critical. Martha certainly cannot be faulted for what she does (practicing hospitality and serving Jesus), yet she needs to be critiqued for how she does those deeds, and thereby scrutinizing the nature of her discipleship. The crucial implication of the definitive context to which Jesus connects this family involves not just any kind of relationship. For persons like Martha, thinking relationally is always more difficult when the surrounding context defines persons in fixed roles and confines them to the performance of those roles—the performative purpose defining discipleship. The non-fluid nature of their sociocultural context makes individuality outside those roles an aberration; consequently the norm not only constrains the person but also limits (intentionally or inadvertently) the level of involvement in relationships. These barriers make the function of relationship critical for Martha since she is a product of her times—something we all can identify with in one way or another. The person Martha presented to Jesus is based on her role and what she does, which she seemed to perform well. By defining herself in this way, she focused quite naturally on her main priority of all the hospitable work (diakonia) to be done, that is, her service or ministry (diakoneo, Lk 10:40). This work, on the one hand, is culturally hers to do while, on the other hand, it is an opportunity for her to serve Jesus. Yet, defining her person by what she does and the role she has also determines what she pays attention to and ignores (using the lens from her perceptual-interpretive framework) in others, and thus how she does relationships with them—the prevailing bias that predisposes all of us. More specifically, Martha stays within the limits of her role in relationship with Jesus, whom she relates to based on his role, all as determined by the traditions in her local context. In other words, Martha does not engage Jesus and connect with him in the quality of relationship made accessible to her from his whole and thus primary context. Given her terms for discipleship, a controversy emerges as Martha enacts her discipleship of serving. She creates the controversy with her terms, which she imposes on Jesus to center on for what’s primary to her: “Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to do all the serving by myself? Call her then to help me” (10:40). The issue strongly raised by Martha also involves the sensitive matter of gender, which will fully unfold shortly with her sister Mary. Since the person Martha presents to Jesus was based on her role and what she does in performing it, Martha doesn’t connect with Jesus in the depth of relationship made accessible to her from the primary relational context of Jesus’ vulnerable presence and involvement with her—that is, in his intrusive relational path of the whole gospel. Since his gospel didn’t change her limits and constraints, this person and her relationship with Jesus can be seen clearly in their second interaction when Lazarus died (Jn 11:1-40). In this second interaction Martha quickly extends herself again to Jesus when her brother died (Jn 11:21); she appears not to lack in initiative. Her opening words to Jesus are exactly the same words (see Greek text) Mary would share with him in their encounter moments later: “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died” (v.21, Mary in v.32). Yet, while expressing her discouragement and seemingly holding Jesus accountable, in the same breath she qualifies her words with an indirect statement based on her assumption: “But even now I know that God will give you whatever you ask of him” (v.22). Whether she is suggesting or requesting that Jesus do something, her indirectness is probably true to cultural form by not asking Jesus (Master, Teacher) for a favor directly. Furthermore, Martha stays within the limits (functional barriers) of relationship between men/rabbi and women. Her indirectness evokes from Jesus a simple yet personal response of what will happen: “Your brother will rise again” (v.23), implying his relational involvement with them. Since Jesus had already taught about the future resurrection from the dead (Jn 5:28-29; 6:39-40), Martha must have learned that lesson as referential information earlier for her theology, making reference to it here (v.24)—another assumption shaping her person and relationships. These words by Martha are what a good student would be expected to say. On the surface of Jesus’ response, he then seems to take her on a short theological exercise, yet he is really trying to make deeper relational connection with her at the vulnerable level of her heart—“believes in me,” the intimate relational work of trust (vv.25-26). Martha responds with a clear confession of faith (v.27) but without the intimate relational connection with the whole person of her faith, who is kept at a relational distance as she goes back to call Mary. Later, even her confession is called into question, as she is tested relationally by reductionism: the fact of the situation vs. the person of her faith (vv.39-40). Consciously or not, Martha struggles with the shaping influence of her surrounding context, and this indicates the extent to which the whole gospel has penetrated her life. The priorities of Martha’s local context limits her identity to provincial terms from outer in and consequently constrains her person from being able to function from inner out and to engage Jesus accordingly—that is, both compatible and vulnerable to his person. How Martha is defined by her sociocultural context also determines the function of her person, which predisposed her to Jesus and biases how she does relationship with him. As a product of human contextualization, she shapes the relationship together with Jesus in commonized ways. With this cultural-perceptual framework, she pays attention to Jesus primarily in his role as Lord and Teacher but overlooks his whole person in this interaction; she concentrates on serving Jesus but ignores being relationally involved with him, as evidenced in the first interaction. Consequently, she neither exercises her whole person from inner out nor experiences her whole person with Jesus in the primary function of relationship imperative for his followers, which Jesus later made paradigmatic (Jn 12:26). As a substitute for what is primary, Martha occupies herself in what is secondary—not necessarily unimportant (as hospitality and serving Jesus evidence) yet clearly secondary to what is primary. At this point, examine reflectively what you just witnessed in Martha, as if preparing for a pop quiz. With all her dedication and good intentions, Martha essentially related to and served Jesus with reductionist substitutes and practices, thus demonstrating her weak view of sin and reduced theological anthropology. In terms of how she related to Jesus under the influence of reductionism, what she paid attention to and ignored about both her person as well as Jesus’ person, including about their relationship, Martha inadvertently functioned to reinforce counter-relational work. Such practice takes place all too commonly among God’s people, even while serving Jesus. Consequently, discipleship ongoingly needs to be scrutinized in Christian diversity. This raises the concern about what it means to serve him and a pervasive issue we readily practice when serving Jesus: defining ourselves by serving, and thus being focused primarily on the work to be done while guided by a servant model. Jesus says “whoever serves me must follow me; and where I am, my servant also will be” (Jn 12:26). In these unalterable relational words he communicates the necessary condition to serve him is to follow him and be where he is; that is, this is the function of relationship in ongoing intimate involvement with his whole person. Serving does not come first to define what it means to follow Jesus. The word “to serve” (diakoneo) comes from the word for minister, servant, deacon (diakonos) and has the emphasis on the work to be done, not on the relationship between Lord and servant. This transposes the primacy of relationship to a secondary priority based on defining human persons by reduced ontology and function. This is a vital distinction for all his followers. Because in defining what is necessary to serve him, Jesus is also clearly definitive about what is insufficient to serve him: to focus primarily on the work to be done, or on related situations and circumstances, no matter how dedicated we are or how good our intentions. Jesus did not discount the particular service Martha was doing but how she engaged it. How we serve is just as important as whether we serve or not. Therefore, any reductionist substitutes and practices for serving him are not an option. For all his followers, Jesus makes paradigmatic for serving and imperative for discipleship: the function of intimate relationship together as the primary priority—which is not understood in John 12:26 by referential language but only in the relational language of Jesus’ relational messages about (1) his person, (2) our person, and (3) our relationship. Unfortunately, Martha continued to be conflicted in her discipleship, still remaining in the limits and constraints defining her person and determining her relationships. In their last time together at another dinner given in Jesus’ honor, Martha continued to stay in her traditional place among the women to serve, even though the dinner was not in her home (Mk 14:3; Jn 12:2). Whether she was still occupied by the secondary is not clear; but she did not complain about Mary not serving, who was now even more uncommonly distinguished face to Face with Jesus in the primacy of relationship to be discussed below (Jn 12:3; Mk 14:6). The discipleship purpose of serving is a complex process to navigate in the contexts of everyday life, which is compounded by the diverse serving engaged in Christian diversity. The embodied Word unequivocally clarified the process, so that his followers don’t get misdirected by a serving purpose at the expense of the primary involvement in relationship together (nonnegotiable in Jn 12:26). Transposing the secondary (as important as it may be or appear) over the primary is a default condition that sincere, serious or dedicated Christians readily fall into. Thus, the Word also corrects this misleading and misguiding purpose in order to repurpose its diversity, just as he did with the dedicated serving of the church in Ephesus (Rev 2:2-4).
The Journey Repurposing Discipleship
Martha’s journey was limited and constrained, in which she had difficulty changing because it engaged a dynamic synthesis of conforming and gender. Her discipleship purpose of serving was slow to be repurposed by the Word’s “there is need of only one priority” (Lk 10:42). Women have a difficult time sorting this out to repurpose their lives, with all that is expected or even required of them. Nevertheless, “Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her.” In a totally unexpected way, not only to Martha but also to the other twelve disciples with Jesus, Mary chose to follow Jesus on his intrusive relational path for the primacy of relationship together: “Mary has chosen the primary” (10:42) and she “sat vulnerably involved at the Lord’s feet and listened carefully to what he was saying” (10:39). Perhaps for us today this seems reasonably the right thing to do, but it was shocking in her time. Her dynamics even for today are extraordinary; that is, Mary engaged in uncommon function that went beyond both what was common in her surrounding context and what was common in the other disciples’ function. Past or present, Jesus’ disciples are not distinguished until their function is uncommon from the common in their everyday life, whereby their identity and function constitute whole-ly disciples. Mary’s choice was not a simple one to make. She cannot be characterized merely as a different personality type from Martha, which predisposed her to extend herself to make better connection with Jesus. In these two interactions Martha actually demonstrates more initiative than Mary. They also were both constrained by their sociocultural context to the same fixed role. Mary had neither the privilege of an optional role nor could she be an exception. This is the reason Martha legitimately expected Mary to be like her, and why she tried to manipulate Jesus (“Lord, don’t you care…”) to make Mary fulfill her role (Lk 10:40). What was culturally hers to do was culturally also Mary’s. Moreover, household roles and expectations were only part of the pressure Mary faced in her surrounding context. Mary seemed to ignore the work (diakoneo) that was culturally hers to do and chose instead to engage Jesus in a manner not customarily available to women. That is, she also goes against the religious culture by sitting at Jesus’ feet in order to be taught by the Rabbi (Lk 10:39); this is a privileged place forbidden for women and reserved only for men, particularly disciples (note also, that serious disciples usually were training for leadership). This takes place during an important period in Jesus’ ministry when he has intensified his private teaching of his disciples in preparation of their forthcoming leadership. Imagine then what his disciples thought (or even said in protest) when Mary sat next to them. Surely, at least, some must have said to themselves: “What is this woman doing? Who does she think she is?” On the other hand, if they accepted her actions, her person would have been defined at the bottom of their comparative scale—as the least among them since these disciples were concerned about “who was the greatest” (Mk 9:34; Lk 22:24). Yet, Mary is willing to risk ridicule and rejection (even by Jesus) by going beyond any religio-cultural constraints in order to pursue the person Jesus. She effectively doesn’t allow reductionism to control her life and merely do what is expected and comfortable—that is, to diminish her person and limit her relational involvement. By her uncommon choice, she clearly acts only on what is important and necessary: the whole person in the function of intimate relationship together. Jesus fully receives her person for this relationship and, in openly doing so, teaches his disciples not only a lesson on the relationship-specific priority of discipleship but also on the relationship-specific function of leadership—lessons noticeably absent in theological education today. At this pivotal point in the tension and controversy, Jesus both clarifies the issue and corrects the practice of discipleship: “You are concerned and preoccupied by many secondary things, but only the primary is needed for whole disciples and discipleship”—the primacy of relationship together in face-to-face intimate involvement—and “Mary has chosen what is primary over the secondary, and it will not be taken away from her” (10:41-42, NIV). Not only will the primacy of intimate relationship together be neither taken away nor reduced, but with face-to-face involvement the relationship will grow more deeply together. This experiential truth and relational reality will unfold as the narrative continues.
As we follow the narrative of these disciples, it would be helpful to pause with a pop quiz in order to consider which of them has received and is responding to the embodied Word’s gospel. Which one and why so? The most intrusive outcome of his gospel is the change it brings to persons and relationships. How much change it brings is directly correlated to how deep the gospel penetrates our persons and relationships. We commonly make assumptions about the gospel in our theology and practice, which bias how we see others theology and practice; and such assumptions with their biases are active in the diverse discipleship enacted in this total narrative. The gospel of God’s whole face is vulnerably present and relationally involved; and the specific Jesus that disciples use will be whom they follow in their discipleship. How would you describe that Jesus for each of them?
The primacy of relationship is inseparable from discipleship as defined and determined by Jesus, especially for those who are committed to serve him (unavoidable in Jn 12:26). This necessarily involves the call to be redefined from outer in to inner out, transformed from reductionism and made whole in relationship together—in other words, the gospel of transformation to wholeness.[2] For Martha, who shaped relationship together as a hospitable servant of Jesus, this implied her need for redemptive change. Though she took a small step to connect initially with Jesus in their second interaction, she needed to be redeemed (set free) to be involved in the primacy of whole relationship together with Jesus as Mary was. Unlike Mary, this change was too hard a choice for Martha to make decisively. Mary’s discipleship emerged in this primacy and continues to grow in the depth of her involvement with Jesus. Her whole person functioning in intimate relationship with Jesus is even more evident as we see them in further interactions. Returning to Lazarus’ death and their second interaction, Mary quickly goes out to meet “the Teacher” who has asked for her (Jn 11:28-29). When she sees him she says the same opening words as Martha earlier (vv.32,21). These are her only spoken words, but not all she communicates to Jesus. When she sees him, “she fell at his feet” (v.32) and says the above while “weeping” (v.33a). Mary makes her whole person vulnerable and fully shares her heart (likely including some anger) with Jesus, which Martha doesn’t seem to do even with the same words. This points to the non-verbal relational messages qualifying their words that Mary communicates profoundly with Jesus, thus deeply moving his heart to make intimate connection with Mary (vv.33b,35,38). In those relational messages about her person, Jesus’ person and their relationship, Mary vulnerably opens her person from inner out, withholding nothing (even the negative) from Jesus, and simply lays her person bare before his person whether it is appropriate or not. This is not a time to be restrained or to be measured in her relational involvement in any way, but for their persons to make deep intimate connection. In these moments, she experiences her Teacher (didaskolos) more deeply and comes to know him as never before—the relational outcome of intimate friends. Their intimate connection is qualitatively distinct from the connection between Martha and Jesus moments earlier. This is the relational outcome in redeemed relationship of the whole person functioning in intimate involvement together. This relational outcome is what Jesus saves and calls his disciples to, which the whole gospel does not limit to what he saves us from. The difference between Mary and Martha that unfolds in this defining narrative cannot be explained as the natural diversity among Jesus’ disciples. That would assume a God-given diversity, which would be contrary to the disciples chosen by God and counter the relational significance of Jesus’ call. Such so-called natural diversity, therefore, has opened the hermeneutic door to interpret the diverse condition of existing disciples and their discipleship as positive expressions to affirm. This bias of Christian diversity is growing in popularity even though the diversity may reflect fragmentary persons and relationships in reduced ontology and function rather than signifying the change of the gospel reflecting the wholeness of God. Once again, how much change the gospel brings hinges on how deep the gospel is allowed to penetrate our persons and relationships, and that’s why these interactions are pivotal. Up to now the twelve disciples appear to be innocent bystanders in this defining narrative. A more accurate description, however, would identify the relational distance that the Twelve maintained during these interactions—in measured involvement characterizing their ongoing discipleship—likely to avoid their own discomfort with the relational issues involved. That is about to change in the next interaction the two sisters had with Jesus. As further evidence of Mary’s continued growth in the primary of relational involvement with Jesus, this narrative keeps unfolding in defining relational terms. Mary deepens her intimate connection with Jesus in a third interaction, which illuminates an immeasurable depth of how vulnerable her whole person is made to Jesus’ whole person (Jn 12:1-8, par. Mt 26:6-13; Mk 14:3-9). We need to pay attention to the growth of her involvement as a distinguished disciple sitting at Jesus’ feet with attentive listening of her whole person, because now she goes beyond this level of involvement to the deepest relational connection imaginable with Jesus’ whole person—beyond even the level of intimate friends in their second interaction. To enact this involvement Mary again makes another hard choice. As she cleans Jesus’ feet, Mary’s action might be considered customary for guests to have their feet washed at table fellowship; if this all it were, Jesus would not have magnified it (Mk 14:9). With the cost of the perfume (worth “a year’s wages,” v.5, NIV) added to her decision, she again acts contrary to prevailing cultural form and practice to literally let her hair down to intimately connect with Jesus—inappropriate conduct for both of them—and humbly with love attends to his needs. Mary is engaged in the deepest relational work of a disciple, which Jesus defines clearly for his disciples as “a beautiful (kalos, in quality and character) thing (ergon, work of her vocation) to me” (v.6; Mt 26:10, parallel account) because her action unfolds in the primacy of relationship with nothing less of her whole person and no substitutes for the depth of her relational involvement. On this whole and uncommon relational basis, she responds unmistakably distinguished to “follow me.” Mary’s whole person from inner out, in distinct person-consciousness (not centered in self-consciousness) with its lens of qualitative sensitivity and relational awareness, perceives Jesus’ whole person without distinctions of “Teacher and Lord” (cf. Jn 13:13)—which also demonstrated her syniemi, synesis, and epignosis of God’s whole presence (as Paul clarified for the church, Col 2:2-4). Not restrained by self-consciousness (as many of us are) her whole person thereby responds to his innermost person (cf. Jn 12:27; Mt 26:37-38). In this relational context and process with Jesus, the whole of Mary’s person from inner out, without the human distinction of gender and the secondary distinction of disciple, steps forth. Yet, her whole person could not be celebrated until she broke through the constraints of this dominant distinction and went beyond the limits of this secondary distinction in order to shift from self-consciousness to person-consciousness. Once again, her person further acts contrary to prevailing cultural form and practice, demonstrated boldly by letting her hair down to intimately connect with Jesus—which is uncommon conduct for both of them that necessarily distinguishes the whole gospel’s relational outcome and Jesus’ call to be whole and live whole together. Mary’s action demonstrated the most relationally significant practice of diakoneo, in which she served Jesus while intimately involved with his person more than ever before. She gave her person to Jesus, and Jesus not only received her person but also received from her person. This continued to contrast with Martha’s diakoneo (Jn 12:2), though not to diminish that kind of service but repurpose it. Yet, we need to understand the ongoing hard choice of function involved here. The ongoing uncommon choice of how she was going to function was pivotal for Mary, as it is for all of Jesus’ disciples. Mary grew further in her person and experienced more of this relational outcome, because she would not allow the counter-relational work of reductionism to prevent her—which is the common influence limiting and constraining Christians—from this opportunity to make intimate connection with Jesus face to face. Without the restraints of reductionism on her heart, she seized the opportunity of the vulnerable presence of Jesus’ whole person (as he said, “you will not always have me,” 12:8). Love functions this way, it always makes the person and the relationship most important—regardless of the need and work to be done. That’s why Jesus made it definitive: “I desire the relational involvement of love, not sacrifice,” which we all need to learn (Mt 9:13). This is how Jesus functions with us and how he wants us to follow him and be with him. Thus, once again, the accessible Jesus not only received Mary’s person for intimate connection in the priority of their relationship, but he also clearly makes this relational process more important than even ministry to the poor—though not reducing this ministry to outer-in serving because this involvement like Mary’s is how poor persons (among others, including Jesus) need to be served. Apart from Judas Iscariot’s motives (Jn 12:4-6), this was important to learn for the disciples who tried to reprioritize Mary’s act (Mt 26:8-9). It was critical for Mary to embrace person-consciousness of her whole person over a pervasive self-consciousness of merely parts of her, and to engage its lens of inner out instead of a prevailing outer-in lens in order to affirm personness (not self or the individual) and celebrate whole ontology and function. Equally important, this was necessary for the distinctions attached to her own person in order to live whole and thus be able to perceive and respond to Jesus’ whole person without distinctions—those barriers preventing intimate relational connection. If Mary doesn’t embrace personness and celebrate her whole person, she doesn’t embrace the innermost of Jesus and celebrate his whole person defined beyond those parts of what he does (even on the cross) and what he has (even as God). In other words, without Mary’s conscious action in personness this interaction cannot unfold with the significance of the whole-ly relational outcome distinguishing the Word’s gospel, that is, only the gospel of transformation to wholeness. The common choice of function the twelve disciples made was not only contrary to but in conflict with Mary’s uncommon choice. This hard choice of her function signified the redemptive change of the gospel that penetrated, encompassed and integrated her whole person and relationships, the freeing change which had yet to become an experiential reality for the other disciples. In spite of the experiential truth of the gospel unfolding, the other disciples object to such involvement together since they are focused on the outer in of self-consciousness, which gives priority to the secondary of servant discipleship over the primacy of relationship together (Mk 14:4-5). There is no celebration for them, only the obligation of duty (serving the poor, cf. “fast and pray” at the first new wine table fellowship, Lk 5:33-39). Even the taste of new wine is only a memory for them, as Jesus’ whole person is overlooked (notably at this critical point) and rendered secondary to serving (Mk 14:7, cf. Lk 5:34). Jesus’ rebuttal in relational language is revealing and magnifying. Jesus stops his other disciples from harassing her and defines clearly for them that Mary is engaged in “a beautiful thing to me” (Mk 14:6, NIV). It is misleading, if not inaccurate, to render Jesus’ words “performed a good service for me” (NRSV). Jesus is not speaking in referential language focused on the secondary of servant discipleship. “Beautiful” (kalos, quality) and “thing” (ergon, work of vocation or calling) signify the qualitative sensitivity and relational awareness of Mary’s work. Yet, what is this work that Jesus deeply received and the other disciples rejected? First, Mary was not focused on the quantitative from outer in and thus not in self-consciousness about breaking cultural form or the expense of the perfume. Nor was she concerned about performing a good service. Her person-consciousness was focused on the qualitative from inner out, thereby focused on the whole person and the primacy of relationships. Her “beautiful thing” involved nothing less than the qualitative sensitivity and no substitutes for the relational awareness of her relational work, which she engaged vulnerably and intimately not for Jesus or even to him but directly with the whole of Jesus in reciprocal relationship Face to face to Face. As Mary celebrates the whole person (both hers and Jesus’) without outer-in distinctions, she involves her person with Jesus’ in what truly signifies being “naked and without shame” (as originally created, Gen 2:25), that is to say, vulnerable and intimate without the relational distance and barriers signifying the self-consciousness of “naked and covering up” (and related face-masks, as substitutes for being whole, Gen 3:7). Mary celebrates being “naked and without shame” in the relationship together constituted in the beginning, fragmented from the beginning and now being reconstituted to wholeness. This celebration is not just a further taste of the new wine fellowship composed by Jesus but the celebration of its flow shared vulnerably and intimately as family together, the new creation family ‘already’ (Jn 14:18,23; 17:21-23). Therefore, the significance of her involvement and Jesus’ response must be paid attention to because it initiates this relational outcome of new relationship together in wholeness without the veil—the veil (the holy partition) that Jesus is soon to remove to constitute God’s new creation family from inner out without distinctions (2 Cor 3:16-18; Eph 2:14-22; Gal 3:26-28; 6:15; Col 3:10-11). And even though the theology had yet to be formulated for Mary, its functional significance was whole-ly embodied by her. Mary’s significance unfolds as she (1) celebrated Jesus calling her to personness, and (2) celebrated the relational work of her primary vocation with the qualitative depth of her whole person without distinctions, in reciprocal response to Jesus’ whole person for the primacy of relationship together in wholeness without the veil, in order to (3) be vulnerable and intimately involved with the whole and uncommon God to celebrate life together in God’s whole family—and therefore fulfilling the challenge of the whole profile of God’s Face and for the face of our compatible response and congruent involvement in nothing less and no substitutes of Face-to-face-to-Face relationship together. This constitutes the essential journey repurposing discipleship that all of his followers are accountable to navigate in the diverse contexts of life. Mary’s whole theology and practice illuminate the keys for celebrating God’s wholeness, which is the only peace that the Word gives to his followers (Jn 14:27). In this relational reality, her qualitative hermeneutic lens, her heart in the innermost of ontology, and her function from inner out are the keys both to engage God’s relationship-specific context and to be involved in God’s relationship-specific process necessary to celebrate the whole person without distinctions, new relationship without the veil to be whole together, and the whole and uncommon God in vulnerable and intimate reciprocal relationship Face to face to Face—all with nothing less and no substitutes. And don’t make the biased oversight the disciples made, her person-consciousness with qualitative sensitivity and relational awareness in the primacy of relationship together was distinguished from the other disciples’ self-consciousness engaged in secondary matter over the primary. The contrast of the disciples in this narrative is, on the one hand, revealing of fragmentary (as in diverse) disciples and discipleship, and, on the other hand, defining for whole-ly disciples and discipleship—both of which are directly correlated to how deep the Word’s gospel has penetrated our persons and relationships to repurpose the diversity of Jesus’ followers. The dynamics of the qualitative sensitivity and relational awareness of Mary’s relational work converge to compose the above three-fold celebration. Her relational work provides the hermeneutical, ontological and functional keys to celebrating the wholeness that emerges solely from the relational outcome of the whole gospel. At this stage, the other disciples are still on a different relational path from Jesus, engaged in a fragmentary gospel while (pre)occupied in a renegotiated calling of self-conscious secondary work. Their lack of qualitative sensitivity and relational awareness, with related relational distance, has an unmistakable relational consequence (Jn 14:9), contrary to the whole-ly God’s vulnerable presence and intimate involvement strategically embodied by Jesus (Jn 17:2-3) and what Jesus tactically prayed to compose his whole family (Jn 17:20-26).
Mary’s relational work is integral to constitute persons in reciprocal relationship together as composed by the experiential truth of the whole gospel. On this qualitative relational basis, Jesus magnifies Mary’s person as a key to the significance of the gospel’s relational outcome of new relationship together in wholeness, necessarily in the qualitative image and relational likeness of the Trinity (as Jesus embodied and prayed): “Wherever the whole gospel is proclaimed, claimed and celebrated in the whole world, her whole person’s vulnerable and intimate relational work will be told as a reminder to illuminate the whole ontology and function that necessarily unfolds from the relational outcome of the gospel of transformation to wholeness” (Mk14:9). The journey repurposing discipleship is an ongoing relational process that requires hard choices and redemptive changes—changes that transform and not merely reform—for diverse purposes to turn around from their divergence. In a pop quiz of the Word, the diversity of discipleship will never pass its scrutiny whenever diversity’s practice (1) is lukewarm (like the resourceful church in Laodicea), (2) is not whole (like the esteemed church in Sardis), or (3) serves the secondary at the expense of the primary (like the dedicated church in Ephesus). Hence, such diversity faces hard choices and redemptive changes (as Martha discovered, Mary enacted, and Paul embodied, discussed below) in order to be repurposed according to the whole-ly Word. This relational process is nonnegotiable and thus invariable in any pop quiz of the Word. The repurposing of Christian diversity in general involves: Choosing between what’s easier and what’s harder, thus choosing tradition or the Word, between the half-truths of diversity or the whole truth of the Word, between conforming or transforming, between what’s common or uncommon, between the breadth of the secondary or the depth of the primary—that is, choosing between “the road is easy” or “the road is hard” for discipleship (Mt 7:13-14). Vulnerably, then, changing integrally according to what’s harder in these hard choices—that is, not changes of mere reforms but the deep redemptive changes of transformation, with nothing less and so substitutes so that the old dies and the new is raised up (Gal 6:15; 2 Cor 5:17). You may wonder how rational these choices could be and how reasonable these changes would be in the existential life of global diversity. Perhaps you may assume that some level of compromise is more realistic, or that a hybrid in Christian identity and function is the best alternative for diversity (like the activist church in Thyatira). However, it’s thoughts and assumptions like these that the Word corrected for the hybrid practice of the church in Thyatira, so that “all the churches will know that I am the one who searches minds and hearts, and I will hold accountable each of you as your diverse works deserve” (Rev 2:23).
As discussed earlier, Paul intensely led the fight against the fragmenting consequences of Christian diversity. His journey was neither simple nor easy, but it involved hard choices and redemptive changes for him to move straightforward based on the Word. Ironically, Saul/Paul initially fought vigorously against the diversification of the people of God by those from the so-called Way (Acts 7:58; 8:1-3); and he was unrelenting in the demands of conformity to fundamental Judaism (Gal 1:13-14). Therefore, the Word intervened in Saul’s journey to turn him around so that his theology and practice were repurposed. Paul made hard choices for the changes necessary based on, by and for the Word, which integrally constituted his journey both to take the lead in proclaiming the whole gospel and in the integral formation of the church. Despite having a diaspora Jewish identity as a Roman citizen,[3] it is vital to understand how Paul’s diverse identity functioned in the multicultural diversity of the 1st Century world, and whose ethno-racial diversity in particular challenged the distinctions of others. How did Paul’s journey take the lead for the gospel and the church under these conditions? Our understanding of Paul’s function is a key to repurposing Christian diversity today. When the embodied Word commissioned his disciples, he stated “Peace be with you” (Jn 20:21)—that is, “my peace as wholeness I give to you. I do not give to you as the diverse world gives” (Jn 14:27). On only this whole basis, and thus never on any diversified basis, “As the Father has sent me into the world’s diversity, so I send you” (20:21), which fulfills his prayer for his family (Jn 17:18). This is the gospel of peace, the only Good News by which the Word sends his now repurposed followers into global diversity in order to enact his relational imperative: “Make disciples to repurpose all persons, peoples, tribes and nations” (Mt 28:19). Paul made the choices and changes to wholeheartedly claim the gospel of peace (Eph 6:15) to embody and enact whole-ly the Word’s commission for only his repurposed followers. In Paul’s repurposed diversity, “I have become all things to all people” (1 Cor 9:22). This seems to give Paul the appearance that he was not his own person but just conformed to others around him; that would misunderstand Paul. Even though the transformed Paul was free from the limits and constraints of diversity’s distinctions, he subjugated (douloo) himself to all distinctions without compromising his person: “to the Jews…to those under the law…to those outside the law…to the weak”—whatever the distinctions “I have become these to all of diversity…for the sake of the gospel” (9:19-23). How does a person, who transposed the primacy of human distinctions promoted in the church in order to reverse its inequality and inequity, now suddenly subjugate himself to those distinctions? Make no mistake, Paul didn’t elevate distinctions by highlighting them. Rather he related to distinctions in the new way repurposed with a new primacy. Because Paul submitted his person first and foremost to the whole-ly Word and his gospel (9:21), Paul now functioned in the primacy of relationship together constituted in wholeness. On this uncommon relational basis, he repurposed a chameleon dynamic to extend the relational involvement of this primacy to others by connecting with them initially at the level of their distinctions. In other words, Paul wanted to walk in their diverse shoes in order to connect with them on their distinctive ground—not to be confused with divergent terms, but to enact his empathy and not to display merely sympathy or embody mere apathy. His empathetic relational involvement was necessary by the nature of his redemptive changes, so that the experiential truth of their persons and the relational reality of their relationships will be transformed from inner out and thereby constituted in wholeness. For instance, Paul’s diverse level of connection on others’ ground is observed in Athens when he met with a gathering of philosophers to be involved with them in their shoes (Acts 17:16-34). Paul further demonstrates his diverse connections by his face-to-face relational involvement, on the one hand, with the indentured servant Onesimus while, on the other hand, with his owner Philemon (in Phm). This is the integral journey of the chameleon Paul, the existential reality of which ongoingly required his unbiased choices and redemptive changes in the face of pushback received from human and Christian diversity, both in local contexts and global context. These choices and changes were essential for his journey in order that his theology and practice remain whole-ly for his identity and function as the Word’s new creation. It is only this relational outcome that Paul’s chameleon journey pursued “for the sake of the gospel, so that I may share in its blessings.” To make disciples from human diversity is only a relational process, which can only be engaged by a relational function and thereby fulfilled only by the vulnerable relational involvement of the whole person from inner out not defined or determined by distinctions. The primacy of this integral relational dynamic is never replaceable with secondary distinctions, no matter how capable, resourceful, esteemed or dedicated. When the primacy of this irreducible and nonnegotiable relational dynamic is diversified, it falls into ontological simulations and evolves in functional illusions that are rendered by the reverse dynamic of anything less and any substitutes. Is the reverse dynamic what prevails in the discipleship of Christian diversity today?
Diverse Consonant Voices of One Coherent Witness
Language is the primary medium that persons, peoples, tribes and nations use to communicate their identity and function. Music is a vital dimension of language that is helpful to understand the meaning of a communication and for clarity of what is expressed. For example, the dissonance of the music expressed can make what it’s communicating unclear, which then can render ambiguous the music genre played. Analogously, any language used must have consonant meaning (shared “signs”) or else the message communicated becomes ambiguous, which then makes the message uncertain and easily misinterpreted. This is the existing problem heard in the voices of Christian diversity that is rendering its witness ambiguous. The voice of global Christianity is certainly polyphonic, but its witness in the world should be unequivocally monophonic based on the whole-ly Word. In her analysis of the fundamental nature of nationalism, Eloise Hiebert Meneses points to the temporal condition of every state and empire of the last two millennia and the enduring condition of the church advancing toward the culmination of the kingdom. With nationalism in the U.S. representing the Rome of our time, she raises the issue of Christian witness that does not fragment the gospel, and the need for an integral witness: How are we to avoid syncretizing the gospel at the very place in which it is the most dangerous—the center of global power? Surely this will be possible only with the witness of Christian people from other places. It will be possible to remain truly faithful to Christ in America only by listening carefully to sisters and brothers from elsewhere and by receiving with humble acceptance a theology from the whole church.[4] In the quantitative extent of Meneses’ inclusiveness, however, such an inclusive witness based on global theology does not necessarily either distinguish that witness as integral, or provide that witness with the significance needed to be whole in the prevailing fragmented human condition of the globalizing world. The whole theology and practice of Christian witness is not the quantitative sum of its parts, no matter how many global parts compose its witness. Without synergy, what those diverse voices communicate is in existential reality dissonant with the Word, composing a fragmentary witness that is ambiguous for the surrounding global diversity to embrace in the full significance of the whole gospel. Historically and currently, the diverse voices of global Christianity are either amplified or barely audible, silent or simply rendered silent.[5] The overriding issue for all these voices, whether heard or not, is how consonant or dissonant they are, and thus how significant their witness is.
The reliability of a witness and the validity of their testimony are certainly critical in a court of law. This significance is the nature of witness in jurisprudence, but the process of justice often has not involved this reliability and validity. When the news is reported, the reliability of the reporter and the validity of their report are indispensable for journalism to have credibility. Yet, it is common for most persons to receive the news reported and merely assume the reliability and validity of its information rather than question its reality. Christian witness includes these issues, but it also involves going deeper for its nature of witness and its significance of witnessing. Reliability of a witness, for example, can vary, based on a range from honesty to even good intentions, which is insufficient for compatible Christian witness; and validity is usually based on the facts, which is important but inadequate for congruent Christian witnessing. Along with the legal description of witness (martyrion, and to witness, martyreo), what is distinct of some witnesses (martys) is their participation in and thus experiential knowledge of something. The integrity of Christian witness is distinguished by the direct participation in and thus experiential knowledge of the life of Jesus’ whole person, the whole Truth, which will determine the reliability and validity of Christian witness. The truth of the early disciples’ witness had a two-fold basis: (1) they were eyewitnesses of the life of Jesus, and (2) they participated in and partook of Jesus’ life to experience his whole person, the primary basis of which composed the experiential truth of their witness (e.g. Jn 1:1-4). Since the Damascus road, Paul’s witness emerged from the experiential truth of direct involvement with the palpable Word in face-to-face relationship together—his whole witness based on his participating in and partaking of the whole and uncommon God, even though he wasn’t an eyewitness of the embodied Word. While our experience may not include the drama of Paul’s initial experience, it must involve the depth of his experience with the palpable Word in order to establish the experiential truth of our witness—the integrity distinguished by directly participating in and partaking of the whole of God in uncommon relationship together. When James headed the Jerusalem council correcting the inequality of distinctions because “God makes no distinctions” between members of Christian diversity (Acts 15:6-17), his own witness made redemptive changes that he communicated unambiguously in his epistle. The book of James addresses the diaspora of people of faith in their diverse identity and function. Unapologetically, he calls them integrally to account for their faith and to distinguish their identity and function as those uncommon from the common in their surrounding contexts. With direct application of James to today, U.S. Christians are part of this diaspora, and their common distinction can’t presume that their identity and function stands alone, apart and above in the diversity of God’s family; nor can any other distinction of Christian diversity presume to be unique in God’s family. James, however, distinguishes the wholeness from such reductionism, and thus he fights for the former and against the latter in the identity and function composing the diversity of persons and relationships—just as Paul did for the consonance of their one coherent witness. Contrary to many perceptions or interpretations that James and Paul have different perspectives about faith (i.e. saved by works or by faith), their integral voices communicate one coherent witness that is irreplaceable for the gospel and thus essential for the witness of Christian diversity. Whatever language in global Christianity voices the gospel, it no doubt communicates the gospel’s identity as associated with Jesus. The issue with these diverse voices is less about the gospel’s identity and primarily about the gospel’s function, which often has dissonant voices. Paul identified the gospel embodied by the Word as “the gospel of peace,” so that Christians will function in “the readiness given by the gospel of peace” (Eph 6:15, ESV). The function of the gospel is essential for Christians to fight against the subtle counter-relational workings of reductionism in global diversity (6:10-12), which includes the fragmentary consequences witnessed globally in Christian diversity—with U.S. Christians likely bearing this consequential witness the most. When the function of the gospel is ambiguous, what the Word embodied as experiential truth becomes elusive as the relational reality of Christian witness. This is demonstrated by a diversity of leaders in global Christianity. From the Lausanne Movement’s previous gathering in Cape Town (2010), its theological manifesto was expressed in “The Cape Town Commitment” to spell out what it means for the practice of ministry and mission. In Part II, it initially focused on “Bearing Witness to the truth of Christ in a pluralistic, globalized world,” which included the following statement: “Because Jesus is the truth, truth in Christ is (i) personal as well as propositional; (ii) universal as well as contextual; (iii) ultimate as well as present.”[6] This is followed by a call to be people of truth, who must jointly live and proclaim the truth. If we can assume that this reflects the prominent state of witnessing by the global church today, we get an illuminating picture of its level of experience and the extent of its relational significance. Other than to say “personal as well as propositional,” there is no indication or even sense that the embodied Truth is experiential truth, much less the whole Truth. This lack or gap in their perception of the personal truth of Christ leaves the embodied Truth without the relational significance of the Truth’s only defining purpose to constitute anew the primacy of relationship together in wholeness. Without the experiential truth to fulfill the whole Truth’s defining purpose, the primacy of relationship together in wholeness eludes us for the relational reality of participating in and partaking of the whole Truth—what needs to involve Cape Town’s statement “must live the truth.” The relational consequence of this lack of existential relational reality leaves our witnessing without its relational significance to live fulfilled in wholeness and to help others to experience the truth and relational reality of this wholeness in a pluralistic, globalized world—what needs to distinguish Cape Town’s “must proclaim the truth.” Hence, it is only for the gospel’s integral function that Jesus keeps invoking “Peace be with you” as he sends his followers into the world’s diversity “as the Father has sent me.” And the repurposed peace that Jesus gives his followers (Jn 14:27) is the good-news basis for Paul making it imperative for the integral function of Christian diversity to have one coherent witness of those “called in one body” (Col 3:15), which is constituted as the new creation family in the qualitative image and relational likeness of the Trinity (3:10-11). Global Christianity, however, has typically functioned with diverse versions of peace, the function of which has been fragmentary and thus consequential both within and between its diversity. This dissonant function counters the peace as wholeness given only by the Word, counters the integral relational dynamic of wholeness with the diversity of a reverse dynamic of anything less and any substitutes—thereby contrary to “As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” So, here we are after over two millennia since the Father sent the Word to embody the good news constituting the new creation of relationship together as God’s family, and we still can’t agree on how the Word also sends us—that is, sends us in order to express consonant voices in the function of the gospel, so that our diverse voices will also embody one coherent witness in, with and for the Word’s irreducible and nonnegotiable gospel of peace. When dissonant voices are heard, even reverberating a diverse gospel, these voices flow from a weak view of sin without reductionism, whose witness doesn’t fight against the reductionism in diversity, but either is complicit with its subtlety or reinforces, enables and sustains its diverse workings. This becomes the default condition of Christians and churches not fighting against sin as reductionism, especially since in their version of the gospel Jesus has not forgiven and saved them from the full scope of this sin. Moreover, we are all susceptible to function in such dissonance when our theological anthropology (TA) doesn’t compose the ontology and function of the whole person and relationship together in wholeness. In global Christianity, a reduced TA is pervasive, which renders much of the identity and function of its diversity to a compromised integrity. To fight against any compromised integrity in diverse identity and function, the Word integrates peace with righteousness, which integrates further how the Word sends us with how the Father has sent him.
The Gravity for the Galaxy of Christian Diversity
How has the Word sent you in your diversity? Merely imitating the example of Jesus’ life or just keeping his teachings are insufficient to integrate the identities and functions of Christian diversity in the Word’s whole-ly way whereby he was sent and we sent are in likeness. Without this integration to bring and hold together diverse identities and functions, the integral relational purpose and outcome of the Word’s whole and uncommon peace are elusive. Consequently, without the relational reality of whole-ly peace, diversity becomes fragmentary because there is no sufficient means to bring and hold it together. In the universe (or multiverse), there are a countless number of galaxies like our own Milky Way, each composed with a nearly endless diversity of celestial stars (and related planets). Each star does not have the autonomy to choose its galaxy or to switch galaxies. Stars are brought together and held together by the dynamic of gravity operating in every galaxy, whose dynamic is generated by the black hole at the center of each galaxy. Black holes have only recently been discovered, and understanding them is barely known at this stage. Yet, depending on the strength of its gravitational force, a black hole has the potential of breaking through another galaxy and absorbing all its stars into one’s own galaxy. The mystery of the black hole approaches the mystery of knowing and understanding the totality of God, which will always be beyond human knowledge and understanding. Yet, the whole-ly God sent the Word to reveal all that is necessary and sufficient for the galaxy of Christian diversity. The wholeness of our galaxy maintains its integrity by the gravity of the “black-hole” Word working at the center of diversity’s galaxy. This gravity is not the Word’s peace in itself, but peace is integrated with it. So, what exactly is this gravity? Simply stated, “righteousness and peace kiss each other” for the relational process and outcome of the Word’s gravitational work, which unfolds in this relational dynamic: “Righteousness goes before him and prepares the way for his steps” (Ps 85:10,13). Righteousness is the gravity of the whole-ly Word that brings and holds together the galaxy of Christian diversity. How so? Righteousness counters sin as reductionism and a reduced TA. First and foremost, this is demonstrated in the Good News of covenant relationship, which God’s relational response constituted with the righteousness of the whole-ly Way that is at heart of the Redeemer’s steps (Isa 59:16-17) to bring and hold together the diverse people of God’s covenant family (Isa 9:7). Righteousness (sedaqah) is a legal term used to define God and determine God’s relational involvement with humankind. The judicial process of relationships is essential to determine the integrity of the participants, and whether they can be counted on to fulfill their part of the relationship. The relational function of this integrity cannot be implied or presumed but can only be fulfilled by the integrity of the whole participant’s who, what and how one is from inner out, and on this basis of this righteousness alone can be counted on in relationship together. No other function has the integrity to bring and hold peoples together with the assurance that they can count on in relationship no matter the diversity of their distinctions.
Righteousness constituted the steps by which “the Father has sent me” to be the heart (or black hole) for God’s family. Therefore, righteousness constitutes the steps by which also “I send you,” so that the whole of who, what and how you are can be counted on in relationships together no matter what. The integrity of this integral relational function thereby becomes the gravity that brings and holds together all the distinctions of Christian diversity. Without righteousness, what can be counted on is limited and constrained by the function of diverse distinctions, which lacks the gravity to prevent the fragmentation consequential of diversity. Accordingly, the psalmist declares: “I will proclaim your righteousness, my God, yours alone.… My native tongue will tell of your righteous relational involvement that can be counted on as the gravity bringing and holding us in relationship together as one whole-ly family” (Ps 71:16,24, NIV). On what basis can you count on others in relationship, particularly if you’ve covenanted together? If others (individually or collectively) function in relationship with anything less and any substitutes for righteousness, what part of them is participating, and thus to what extent can they be counted on? Likewise, each of us is personally accountable for our own person, first in relationship with God and then to each other. So, how would others answer these questions about you? If the embodied Word “put on righteousness like a breastplate” in order for the heart of his relational steps not be fragmented, then is the breastplate of righteousness optional or essential? Paul makes this breastplate imperative for our function to negate the counter-relational workings of reductionism (Eph 6:14), the workings which subtly pervade Christian diversity to fragment its galaxy and commonize the function of the gospel of peace (contrary to Paul’s imperative in v. 15). Without the gravity of righteousness, Christian diversity cannot be repurposed to have the relational means to bring together, much less hold together, its galaxy. For this relational purpose, the Word “will make righteousness the plumb line” (Isa 28:17, NIV), and “righteousness as your taskmaster” (Isa 60:17), in order for Christian diversity to experience the relational outcome of righteousness: the relational reality of peace as wholeness integrally constituting the persons and relationships together of God’s whole-ly family (Isa 32:17). Notwithstanding the fact that historically indigenous peoples have been consistently relegated to the distinction of outsiders, explicitly or implicitly, inside the church, this raises a related question. At this stage two millennia after the inception of the church, can you unbiasedly think of any human distinctions that should be distinguished for, and thus by and in the global church? Without righteousness to counteract a weak view of sin and a reduced TA, therefore, Christian diversity will not have the breakthrough to repurpose its galaxy. The consequence, then, is that our galaxy is subjected to ontological simulations and functional illusions, which are presumed to build the galaxy of the global church. The existential reality of this reductionist process is analogous to modern technology constructing a metaverse with virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR); and such a contextualized bias readily becomes commonized among diverse Christians and churches to render virtual the global church. The relational consequences have misled some Christians and churches to use augmented measures while still under the bias assumed from a weak view of sin and a reduced TA. Thus, their function is relationally incongruent with how “I send you” and falls functionally incompatible with “as the Father has sent me.” From the diversity of his followers, then, the Word is waiting for the integral reciprocal relational response and involvement constituted by their righteousness that will by necessity fulfill the Word’s commission of them, whereby they will whole-ly embody the fulfillment of his family prayer “that they may all be one…be one, as we in the Trinity are one” (Jn 17:21-22). Unequivocally indeed, peace and righteousness kiss for the Word’s integral relational purpose, for which righteousness is the only dynamic means to unfold the ontological and functional steps necessary to fulfill this nonnegotiable relational purpose in its irreducible relational outcome. In this whole and uncommon relational process, the repurposed galaxy of Christian diversity distinguishes the re-image-ing of the church, locally, regionally and globally, which will fulfill the Word’s formative family prayer definitive for the church.
The Diaspora of God’s Whole-ly Family
The covenant of God’s family constituted the wholeness of relationship together, which was inaugurated contingent on the righteousness of Abraham’s “walk before me, and be blameless” (be tamiym, Gen 17:1). That is, Abraham’s tamiym constituted the whole of who, what and how he was in his reciprocal relational involvement in ongoing covenant relationship together. On this whole relational basis, God’s family unfolded with the global diversity of persons, peoples, tribes and nations (Gen 12:1-3, cf. Ps 87). This diversity composes “a chosen people…belonging to God” and thus becomes “a holy nation” (1 Pet 2:9, NIV). As a holy nation, therefore, God’s family must not by its nature be contextualized in diverse contexts and thereby commonized. But in order not to be contextualized and commonized, the identity and function of each family member need to be distinguished clearly uncommon from the common (1 Pet 1:15-16), whereby they will participate in diverse contexts “as aliens and exiles” (2:11) to compose the diaspora of God’s whole-ly family. No other persons, peoples, tribes and nations can justly claim to belong to the covenant family relationally enacted by God and relationally embodied by the Word. The repurposed diversity composing the diaspora of God’s whole-ly family is the pivotal redemptive change that relegates each of their distinctions to a secondary significance if focused on in any way. This redemptive change (transformation, not reformation) is the turnaround essential to negate contextualized and commonized biases, which are consequential for rendering distinctions in a comparative system that measures the inequality between them and the subsequent inequity between those perceived as more/better and those as less/inferior. In this prevailing comparative process, how is Christian identity and function typically rated, and on what basis are they rated better or less? The inequalities and inequities existing in Christian diversity are inevitable and thus unavoidable if diversity is not repurposed. Moreover, as evident in the status quo, Christian diversity continues to reinforce competition (by choice or default) among its distinctions for the self-oriented purpose of gaining status, resources and/or members. This acceptable engagement is directly consequential for further stratifying global Christianity to enable and sustain inequality and inequity in the global church. On a regional scale, does the Christian diversity in the U.S. demonstrate this existing condition? However you perceive it, our condition has existential ramifications that render tentative, at best, the significance of peace and justice in both Christian witness and democracy—with the ideology of the latter inseparable from the theology and practice of Christian nationalism. Therefore, whatever your region of global Christianity, don’t be misguided in your theology or misled in your practice. As long as Christian diversity is not repurposed, the integrity of the gospel of peace that is presumed to be claimed and proclaimed is in reality: A fragmentary gospel that does not have the integrity of wholeness, as found in common peace, whereby the witness of the global church is compromised by the prevailing comparative process of diverse distinctions—a dissonant witness notably as competition evolves to claim and proclaim its gospel. This is the existential condition that faces all Christians and churches, for which we are accountable to make hard choices and responsible to enact redemptive changes in order for our diversity to be repurposed so that the global church can be re-image-d. Only until then will our identity be compatible with the whole-ly Word and our function be congruent with his integral commission to be and make disciples “as the Father has sent me into the world, so I send you into the diversity of global contexts.” “My wholeness be with you”—“not as the world gives!”
[1] J. Daniel Hays discusses the distinction of race that evolved in the diversity of God’s people in From every People and Nation: A biblical theology of race (Downers Grove, Il: Apollos, IVP: 2003). [2] An expanded discussion of this whole gospel is found in my study The Gospel of Transformation: Distinguishing the Discipleship and Ecclesiology Integral to Salvation (Transformation Study, 2015). Online at http://www.4X12.org. [3] See Ronald Charles discussion of Paul’s identity as a diaspora Jew in Paul and the Politics of Diaspora (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2014). [4] Eloise Hiebert Meneses, “Bearing Witness in Rome with Theology from the Whole Church,” in Craig Ott and Harold A. Netland, eds., Globalizing Theology: Belief and Practice in an Era of World Christianity (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 244. [5] Diverse voices of global Christianity are expressed in numerous studies listed in the bibliography of this study. [6] The Cape Town Commitment: Part II – For the World We Serve: The Cape Town Call to Action (posted 1/28/2011). Online at http://lausanne.org/content/ctc/ctcommitment, 11. © 2022 T. Dave Matsuo |