4X12

Home    l   Theological Anthropology Study   l    Theology Study   l   Integration Study    l    Paul Study    l    Christology Study    l    Wholeness Study    l    Spirituality Study   l   Essay on Spirituality    l    Discipleship Study    l   Worship Language Study  l   Theology of Worship    l    Contact Us

The Gospel of Transformation

Distinguishing the Discipleship & Ecclesiology Integral to Salvation 

Section II  The Gospel’s Relational Outcome of Wholeness

 

Chapter 10    The Church Composed In and Composing

                               the New Relational Order

 

Sections

 

The Deconstruction to Wholeness

Composed in the New Relational Order

Leadership Composed and Composing

Composed Only in Distinct Relational Terms

The Church Reconstructed as Equalizer

The Question about Slaves

The Question about Women

Composed In and Composing Holy Communion

Reintro

Ch 1

Ch 2

Ch 3

Ch 4

Ch 5

Ch 6

Ch 7

Ch 8

Ch 9

Ch 10

Ch 11

Ch 12

Printable pdf of entire study

Table of Contents

Scripture Index

Bibliography

 

 

 

For he is our wholeness…he came and proclaimed wholeness

to you who were far off and…were near.

Ephesians 2:14-17

 

Embody whatever will make you ready to proclaim

the gospel of wholeness.

Ephesians 6:15           

 

 

 

            When we rewind back to the primordial garden, there was a critical shift in the human relational order that established two defining assumptions—assumptions that continue to be underlying much of our thinking, theology and practice today. The first assumption involves our anthropology and the second encompasses our view of sin. Cast into juxtaposition in the primordial garden are human persons created from inner out and persons redefined from outer in. Persons from inner out engaged in relationship accordingly and were not distracted or diminished by secondary matters, therefore they were intimately involved with each other in a relational order that was not fragmenting (apart, alone) but whole together.

Persons from outer in highlighted their distinctions (i.e. level of knowledge, appearance of their bodies), and engaged in relationship focused on those distinctions and shaped by them. In this seemingly innocuous way they shifted to a relational order based on distinctions in a comparative process (more knowledge, be like God) that unavoidably made them feel “less,” consequently creating relational distance between them by outer-in measures. When these persons were challenged in their anthropology and confronted in their ontology and function (“Where are you?”), they did not recognize how they were reduced as persons; and that their relationship was no longer whole but labored in a fragmenting relational order composed by a counter-relational comparative process. In other words, they did not understand reductionism and thus set in motion a weak view of sin without reductionism—the assumption of which, combined with a reduced theological anthropology, continue to shape the relational order of persons and relationships in churches today.

            Fast-forwarding, when Jesus called Levi to follow him and told Zacchaeus to have table fellowship together, when Jesus forced out the reductionists in his Father’s house and tore away the curtain to reconstitute his dwelling for all peoples, when Jesus corrected Peter’s ecclesiology for all persons to be whole, and when Paul made conclusive Jesus’ relational work of wholeness to compose his family with any and all persons, the human shaping of persons and relationships were deconstructed, transformed and reconstructed whole. Who, what and how this translates into our church theology and practice is crucial to understand in order for its relational outcome to indeed be whole.

            When who, what and how of our person, relationships and church are composed by our default mode of function (review from chap. 5)—knowingly or unknowingly shifting back to reduced ontology and function in everyday life—there is diminished qualitative sensitivity and relational awareness of what is primary and therefore important to God. The vulnerable presence and intimate relational involvement of God then becomes taken for granted, or simply not paid attention to in its primacy, thereby increasingly shaping our person, relationships and church with secondary matter more important to the surrounding context than to God. The consequence is to make indistinguishable the transformed relationships integral to the new creation church family, and therefore to require the deconstruction, transformation and reconstruction necessary to compose his family in the wholeness of the new relational order.

 

 

The Deconstruction to Wholeness

            When persons in the primordial garden shaped their own relationship, it redefined their person from inner out to outer in and set in motion a comparative process for persons and relationships that the church has yet to fully understand, or at the least ignores, in its theology and practice. From this beginning, an encompassing comparative process has countered God’s theological trajectory, and the counter-relational work inherent in its process has displaced Jesus’ relational path (as composed above) as the defining determinant to wholeness for his followers—contrary to what Paul made the relational imperative for the church (Col 3:15). No matter the extent to which the comparative process prevails in the surrounding contexts of the world, its presence and influence shaping persons and relationships in the church needs to be addressed and deconstructed in church theology and practice. We cannot avoid God’s questions of “Where are you?” and “What are you doing here?” and continue to ignore our own assumptions of theological anthropology and sin, as if our person, relationships and churches have not been subject to reductionism.

            One critical human shaping of the church has been notable for countering the church’s distinguished ontology and function in the world, and thereby for diminishing the whole gospel and its integral outcome and mission. This shaping is composed by secondary and false distinctions that reduce persons and result in stratified relationships, whereby barriers are explicitly or implicitly created to prevent building the transformed relationships intimately involving whole persons equalized to compose his new creation church family (as Paul made explicit, Eph 2:11-19).

            The redemptive changes, which Jesus made the relational imperative for his post-ascension discourse churches to undergo, directly involved his relational work of equalizing. What Jesus embodied in experiential relational terms throughout his intrusive relational path was vulnerable relational involvement with the devalued, the dispossessed, the discounted and disregarded—that is, with those stigmatized by false distinctions that created barriers (vertically or horizontally) for relationships to come together to be whole. This required also being directly involved with those who benefited from such distinctions in a prevailing collective order, whether sociocultural, economic, political or religious, including the emerging church. These were persons and collective orders that Jesus never avoided but took initiative to engage intrusively (e.g. Jewish leaders, cleansing the temple). His relational work of family love always involves redemptive reconciliation, and to be redeemed is to be equalized for reconciliation in the relationships necessary to be God’s whole family. These relationships, as Jesus demonstrated, require invariable transformed relationships, both equalized and intimate. As much as we may avoid or ignore the matter, relationships are not fully reconciled until they come together intimately; and relationships are not intimately reconciled until they are first redeemed, thus equalized.

            As long as this existing order is not changed, human communities utilizing this diversity of distinctions and related misuse of differences (e.g. about gender and age) consistently maintain relationships together in some condition “to be apart” (again, horizontally or vertically). When the discussion is about bringing together human diversity, it is misguided to think that persons can be united in relationship together without these distinctions being rendered secondary, even insignificant. Distinctions by their nature always engage a comparative process. Those who employ distinctions on others and for themselves knowingly or inadvertently use a deficit model in human relations: the treatment, however subtle, of others who are different as being essentially less. Whatever the distinction or difference, persons are perceived as less because ostensibly they do not measure up to the prevailing standards used in the reductionist process of defining human persons by what they do or have, achieved or acquired—resulting in ‘identity deficit’ or a sense of ‘ontological deficit’. This deficit model has been used even by well-meaning persons and groups trying to help others in what essentially amounts to their deficit, and thus the inadvertent perception and treatment of them as being “less.” The relational consequences of such perceptions is a stratified relational order embedded in the human relational condition “to be apart” from the whole. Whatever the variation of this human shaping of relationships together, it does not and cannot involve the experiential reality of whole relationships together necessarily composed by whole persons.

            This counter-relational comparative process—of distinction making, with the use of a deficit model to stratify relationships, for creating barriers in relationships together reinforcing the human relational condition “to be apart” from God’s whole—was brought to the forefront of importance by Jesus in his post-ascension discourse, when he encouraged the church in Philadelphia by the experiential truth of his relational work as the equalizer (Rev 3:7-12). Apparently, this relational message was directed to Jewish Christians who had been ostracized from the Jewish community (excluded from the synagogue) because they no longer measured up to the prevailing standard of Judaism (v.9, as the church in Smyrna was, 2:9). Jesus identified himself as the functional and relational keys to God’s house prophesied earlier (Isa 22:22), who determines access to relational belonging to God’s family (v.7). He fully affirmed the experiential truth that they permanently belonged to God’s family (“open door,” v.8, cf. metaphor of 3:20, a relational key to Jesus’ involvement for ecclesiology to be whole). As the equalizer, Jesus’ family love rendered insignificant the distinction imposed on them by the Jews prevailing in that religious order and redeemed them from the barriers to full participation in God’s family (v.9b). This equalized them from any ontological and identity deficit to relationally respond back to be reconciled in reciprocating transformed relationships together as God’s family in the new relational order with the veil removed. Their response back was not of self-determination (“little strength,” dynamis, signifying being unable or incapable) or out of obligation (opheilo) to a code of the law, but ongoing relational response back to Jesus and his terms for whole relationship together as family: “you have kept my word of patient endurance,” that is, without letting secondary things define them in order to respond in the primacy of ongoing reciprocal relationship together (v.10, in contrast to the perseverance of the Ephesian church, 2:3).

            By equalizing them in the surrounding context of this prevailing religious order shaping relationship together, Jesus made unequivocal not only the experiential truth but the experiential reality also that “I have loved you” with family love to be whole in relationship together as God’s family. As the equalizer, he would also humble those Jews functioning in ontological simulation, who imposed this counter-relational comparative process and its false distinctions on them, to know as well that he has loved them as family together—in a dramatic image of equalization (3:9). This dramatic image should be projected back onto his equalizing cleansing of the temple to complete the relational outcome of equalization in the redemptive reconciliation necessary for “my Father’s house” to be for “all nations” without distinctions. In this relational outcome of wholeness ‘already’ Jesus constituted the Philadelphian communion further and deeper as his church family in the relational progression composed within the whole of God’s eschatological plan to the new Jerusalem (3:11-12). In doing so, Jesus’ concern for ecclesiology to be whole is functionally integrated with eschatology in the whole of God’s thematic action.

            As those who have been equalized to permanently belong to the whole of God’s family, part of “your crown” (v.11) as the relational outcome of redemptive reconciliation involved their defining commission (in integral function with their call) to live whole and make whole as the church as equalizer. This was the experiential truth of the gospel they were to embody in the experiential reality of its relational outcome ‘already’, not in isolation merely among themselves but to embody to the world, just as Jesus embodied from his Father to make whole the human condition (Jn 17:18).

            Ironically, the counter-relational comparative process of distinction making and discrimination by Jews to Christian Jews became the same counter-relational process used by various Jewish Christians to make distinctions of Gentile Christians to discriminate against them in stratified relationships with a position of ‘less’ in the early church. This was Peter’s perceptual-interpretive framework and essentially his contradictory practice in the church until Jesus’ post-ascension discourse with him directly. Peter’s and others’ rendering of persons to distinctions and shaping of relationships accordingly in the church had to be deconstructed. Peter later led the discussion in reordering the stratified early church to be the equalizer, though Paul would be the one to make it functional and to compose the ecclesiology of the whole. After Jesus redeemed Peter’s bias and transformed his ecclesiology, Peter declared at the Jerusalem church council that God “has made no distinction between them and us” (Acts 15:9). The term diakrino denotes to make a distinction, discriminate, and treat differently, which God does not practice in his family. This term and God’s family action help us understand that such distinctions are not neutral without repercussions. On the contrary, and we must include our distinctions, they are integrated in a counter-relational comparative process, which uses those distinctions to discriminate toward those persons by treating them differently, namely as being less by the deficit model, and thereby imposing an identity or ontological deficit on them. Peter learned that those distinctions are human constructs, not made by God (cf. Acts 10:14-15). Consequently, they need to be deconstructed, which was not without difficulty for Peter in his own practice.

            In this pivotal action for ecclesiology, the early church turned from its fragmenting relational order to be composed in the new relational order as the equalizer. Its defining function for church practice became distinguished: dissolving false human distinctions of human construction and absorbing legitimate human differences from God in order to be and live the whole of God’s family in the new relational order of transformed relationships together integrally equalized and intimate. As Jesus embodied in his equalizing, church function as equalizer by its nature necessitates being both whole and holy, therefore to be qualitatively distinguished from the function of the common—specifically in the human shaping of persons and relationships from the prevailing function of the surrounding context’s relational order. That relational order must be deconstructed by the church in order for any church to be composed (both transformed and reconstructed) in his new relational order.

            This relational outcome ‘already’ is not an experiential reality without ongoing redemptive change—the necessary deconstruction of church practice antecedent to its transformation and reconstruction to wholeness in the new relational order. Otherwise the church struggles to be distinguished within itself in the world, which then certainly limits its significance to the world. This change was illuminated in the whole of Paul’s own life in order to distinguish his theology with the qualitative relational significance necessary for the church’s whole and thus transformed relationship together, thereby making it imperative for the church today to change with Paul. Understanding of this emerges in response to the following question pointed to earlier: As a Jew and a Christian and an adopted son, to what extent did change need to take effect ‘already’ for his theology to be functional?

           It was never sufficient for Paul to change from outer in, either by outward change only, giving the appearance of some inner significance (metaschematizo, 2 Cor 11:13-15), or by change just from conforming outwardly to a surrounding context’s normative influence and terms (syschematizo, Rom 12:2). What unequivocally constituted change for Paul, together as a Jew and a Christian and an adopted son, involved a pivotal relational process that by its nature necessitated his whole person from inner out. The relational outcome of whole relationship together in God’s family can emerge only from this pivotal relational process. In Paul’s theology, the pivotal relational process is made definitive by being “baptized into Christ” for the redemptive change ‘already’ in which the old dies and the new rises with Christ (Rom 6:4-5) by the Spirit (Rom 8:10-11). The old is the reduced human ontology and function entrenched in the sin of reductionism—the two critical assumptions of our theological anthropology and view of sin—that need redemption to be integrally both freed and made whole as a person in relationship together (Col 3:9-11). The dynamic of the cross becomes paradigmatic for this ongoing process of the old to die ‘already’ and the reality of the new to rise (cf. Paul’s desire for further intimate relationship with Christ, Phil 3:10-11). This is the irreplaceable dynamic through which the kingdom converges into the new creation family of the church.

           The wholeness dynamic of redemptive change is the pivotal process of relational involvement with Christ for the inner-out transformation of the whole person by the Spirit (metamorphoo, 2 Cor 3:18; Rom 12:2), which is necessary for the experiential truth ‘already’ of the relational outcome for relational belonging and ontological identity in God’s new creation family of transformed relationships together, both intimate and equalized (Rom 8:14-17; Gal 3:26-29; 1 Cor 12:13; Col 3:9-11; Eph 4:22-24). Without full and ongoing engagement in redemptive change, there is no reconciliation to these relationships together—though perhaps giving that appearance from outer in, but not inner out, notably in the presence of distinctions. The inseparable dynamic of redemptive reconciliation is indispensable for relationship with the whole and holy God and for all relationships together to be whole in God’s likeness.

            This relational outcome already entirely from redemptive reconciliation was the experiential truth of Paul, from inner out as a Jew and a Christian and an adopted son. Therefore, redemptive change is nonnegotiable and its pivotal relational process of baptism into Christ is irreducible in Paul’s pleroma (completeness) theology. And Paul’s readers need to understand ‘already’ that nothing less and no substitutes are of functional significance both for the whole of Paul’s person and the whole in his theology. Most important, only the experiential reality of this relational outcome ‘already’ composes the church in its transformation to wholeness in the new relational order. For Paul then, any deconstruction of church practice is always in conjoint function with transformation and the ongoing need to reconstruct the new. Since the focus of deconstruction in the church centers on persons and relationships living in a comparative process with distinctions, church transformation and reconstruction focuses both vulnerably on persons from inner out and intrusively in relationships.

 

 

Composed in the New Relational Order

            Jesus’ intrusive relational path composed the new relational order on an experiential basis, not for his followers to observe but to follow him in, as Levi and Zacchaeus experienced, to relationally belong in God’s whole family. For the church to be composed in the same new relational order, it must follow Jesus on his intrusive relational path to be distinguished whole and holy in contrast and even conflict with the surrounding context’s relational order.

            The significance of the church being holy involves a functional aspect and a relational aspect, for which church practice is accountable not only in distinguished minority identity but also in sanctified life and practice both distinct from and intrusive on the surrounding context. Since Jesus redeemed and thus equalized persons in extending to them the whole relationship of his Father as family together, what distinguishes his followers (his family, his church) on his intrusive relational path is to live equalized, and, in full congruence with his relational work, to equalize by extending this whole family relationship of family love. Moreover, while intruding on the existing relational order, Jesus made unmistakably evident throughout his sanctified life and practice that his equalization perspective and a reductionist perceptual-interpretive framework are irreconcilable, thus incompatible as a working basis for church practice—even as pluralism, multiculturalism or any other similar hybrid, all of which are unable to distinguish the whole of God and God’s whole family. Therefore, the functional aspect of being holy involves being freed from the influence of reductionism and its counter-relational work that explicitly or implicitly define and/or determine church practice, and that includes those fragmenting distinctions and their counter-relational comparative process. Accordingly and inseparably, the related relational aspect of being holy involves the integral practice of church relationships intimately involved together in likeness of the Trinity, which is distinguished from any and all aspects of the relational condition “to be apart” from the whole, for example, shaped in likeness of orphans in an orphanage. Church likeness is not a concept to be addressed in its theology but a reality that must be accounted for in church practice. This functional and relational significance of the church being holy interact to compose the process of church qualitative development and growth in the transformed relationships of Jesus’ new relational order.

            In the church’s transformation to wholeness of persons and relationships, the church in wholeness ‘already’ is neither passive nor in a defensive mode. The new creation of whole persons integrally involved in whole relationships together is by its nature dynamic and alive. Any condition of apparent homeostasis in the embodied church should not be confused with maintaining the status quo; the latter essentially is a deteriorating condition in a church (cf. the church in Laodicea, Rev 3:14-17). The dynamic in the church alive involves ongoingly distinguishing the church’s ontology and living the church’s function in wholeness while in the surrounding context of reductionism. The church’s whole ontology and function are ongoingly distinguished only in the relational context and process of the whole of God, which cannot be engaged passively or without reciprocal relational involvement.

            Paul’s closing relational imperative for the church, “be strong,” stated in the Greek passive voice (Eph 6:10), appears to put the church in a passive position and a defensive mode with the armor of God (6:11-18). Yet, by combining the passive voice with the middle voice (indicating direct involvement of subject), Paul is further illuminating the church’s reciprocal relational involvement with the Spirit, and thereby with the whole of God. This direct involvement with the Spirit is integral for the church’s whole ontology and function in the midst of reductionism, while not ignoring reductionism’s presence or underestimating its influence. This reciprocal relationship together does not render the church passive and on the defensive but rather embodies the church in the dynamic position to be on the offensive, alive in the experiential truth and reality of wholeness (6:15). In its ontological identity as light, the church does not just resist reductionism but also exposes, rebukes, refutes and shows its fault (elencho, Eph 5:11-14) in order to extend God’s family love to the human condition with the gospel of transformation to wholeness. This embodies the intrusive nature of Jesus embodying the gospel in his relational path. Paul assumes the offensive enactment of this whole function of the church, in which he personally engages in reciprocal relationship together with them (6:19-20; cf. 2 Cor 5:18-20).

            Paul also assumes that the whole ontology and function of the church is in likeness of the pleroma of God. The whole of God’s thematic relational response to make whole the human condition was embodied and fulfilled by Christ. The truth of this gospel was not a proposition or doctrinal truth to Paul but only the experiential truth of the embodied pleroma of God in whole relationship together—Paul’s definitive basis for exposing, rebuking, refuting and convicting Peter in his reductionism (Gal 2:11-14). The evidence of the experiential truth of the gospel’s whole relationship together embodied by Christ is now embodied and extended by the church in likeness. Therefore, the experiential truth of the gospel of transformation to wholeness is already whole-ly embodied in the church to live whole together as God’s new creation family and to extend God’s family in the world to make whole the human condition. Pointing to his own past updated, Paul earlier reflected on this relational dynamic for those made whole and their call and commission to share the experiential truth of the whole gospel: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news” (Rom 10:14-15; Isa 52:7). The functional significance of this gospel of wholeness is unequivocal when embodied in the church’s whole ontology and function, which is the basis for Paul’s relational imperative for the church in wholeness (Col 3:15) and its relational significance ‘already’ as God’s new creation family (Gal 6:15).

            The nature of the church family as dynamic and alive in the new creation is distinguished only by the function of relationship—that is, whole relationships together, the function of transformed persons relationally involved in transformed relationships together. How deeply a church is distinguished by this function of relationship is the relational outcome of its reciprocal relational involvement together with the Spirit, starting foremost by the vulnerable involvement of its leadership.

 

Leadership Composed and Composing

            Two recent critiques of modern church leadership have emerged in major contexts of the global church. In a pre-Christmas speech to the officials of the Roman Curia (Dec. 22, 2014), Pope Francis made a surprising critique of the cardinals, bishops and priests who run the Vatican—accusing them of succumbing to greed, jealousy, hypocrisy, cowardice and, in his words, “spiritual Alzheimer’s.” At the top of fifteen “illnesses” he listed was the fault of feeling “immortal, immune or even indispensable”; he also denounced their showing off, accumulating wealth and leading double lives, which he said could lead to “existential schizophrenia.” Does Pope Francis echo some of Jesus’ critiques in his post-ascension discourse, along with striking chords from the Sermon on the Mount?

            The second critique emerged in South Korea on December 10, 2014, in the documentary film “Quo Vadis” directed by Kim Jae-hwan—which will open in Los Angeles and New York in January, 2015. The film focuses on mega-churches in South Korea with thousands of members, multimillion-dollar budgets and senior pastors who are feted like rock stars. In a picture of financial malfeasance and sexual abuse by those in control, Kim’s goal is to raise an overdue debate on whether churches have lost their moral authority in a quest to accumulate more congregants and money—a conclusion supported in the film by various professors, pastors and scholars of religion. A Korea Times column described the film as “a forceful reminder of the need for Korea’s Christian leaders to worship God, not mammon.”[1]

            Both of these critiques highlight a critical condition in the global church that no church or church leader can claim to be immune from. As long as a reduced theological anthropology and weak view of sin without reductionism pervade church theology and practice, this critical condition will prevail in any church—starting with its leadership and permeating throughout its members. What composes church leaders will compose those churches.

            How is a minister of righteousness unmistakably distinguished from others appearing as “ministers of righteousness” (e.g. 2 Cor 11:15)? Not by their gifts, resources, role-performance or any other outer-in measure (as in metaschematizo, 11:13-15). Based on outer-in perception and assessment, Paul said the telos (end, goal or limit) of ministers will be determined by the workings of how they define themselves and thereby determine their function, specifically in how they do relationships and lead in church (“Their end will match their deeds.”). Church leaders defined from outer in cannot be distinguished from others in a comparative process, no matter what credentials they have; even Jesus had difficulty being distinguished among Jewish leaders when subjected to a comparative process rooted in outer-in terms. In other words, Paul makes the theological anthropology of church leaders a basic issue in church leadership and a basic antecedent needing to be congruent from inner out for leading the new creation church family (cf. Phil 2:1-5; 1 Cor 12:12-13). This builds on Jesus’ new relational order for leaders (Mk 10:42-44) and points to what in churches is always primary to Jesus (Rev 2:23).

            Theological anthropology congruent with the gospel of transformation to wholeness is a function only of its experiential truth, not mere doctrinal or propositional truth. Given that the church now is to embody this gospel of wholeness, the church’s ontology and function must be an outworking of the theological anthropology that is congruent with the experiential truth and reality of wholeness. Anything less or any substitutes in the church—for example, leadership defined and determined from outer in—fragments the wholeness of God’s new creation to the various shaping of reduced ontology and function; the new creation then becomes indistinguishable from reductionism (cf. “ministers of righteousness”), no longer growing in the functional significance of the gospel of wholeness both to experience within its own life and to extend to the world. This is how reductionism functions in an outer-in dynamic contrary to the inner out of the new creation, signifying a subtle shift in theological anthropology of how persons are defined and thereby determined.

            Paul’s theological anthropology is definitive discourse precisely on the experiential truth of whole ontology and function, invariable in definition yet growing in wholeness, in which Paul’s own person functions to integrate the whole of his witness—both within the church (e.g. 2 Cor 12:7-10) and to the world (cf. Acts 27:23-25)—and the whole in his theology (e.g. Phil 3:7-9). On the basis of the integrity of his whole person presented to others, Paul engaged others with the quality of his communication (e.g. honest and loving, Eph 4:15, 25) that relationally involved himself with others for the depth of whole relationship together congruent with God’s new creation family (e.g. 2 Cor 12:14-15). Integral to Paul’s church leadership was his whole person, which cannot be defined and determined by a comparative process that shapes persons and relationships from outer in (Paul’s critique in 1 Cor 4:6-7; 2 Cor 10:12). Persons congruent with the new creation are being transformed to live from inner out in the qualitative image and relational likeness of the whole of God (Eph 4:24; Col 3:10-11; 2 Cor 3:18), contrary to church leaders functioning from outer in.

            This theological anthropology of whole ontology and function for the person and persons together as church is nonnegotiable for Paul (1 Cor 4:6). The new creation is not open to be defined and determined by human terms and shaping (Eph 4:22-24; Col 3:9-10; 2 Cor 5:16-17). Only the wholeness of Christ brabeuo (“rules” as the only determinant) for the whole person and relationships composing the church (Col 3:15). Just as Paul holds himself accountable for his wholeness (cf. 1 Cor 15:9-10), he firmly holds church leaders accountable for theirs because, for all of them, their wholeness is inseparable from the embodying of the church in whole ontology and function (Col 3:15; Eph 2:14-15; cf. 1 Cor 3:21-23). The new creation functions only in the inner-out dynamic in the qualitative image and relational likeness of God, the transformation which emerges from anakainoo (restored to being new again in one’s original condition, Col 3:10) and ananeoo (being made new from inner out, Eph 4:23). The responsibility for engagement in this process of transformation is reciprocal in only relational terms—not conceptual in referential terms, even with concern for the notion of sanctification. On the one hand, all persons being transformed by the Spirit are responsible for their ongoing relational involvement. On the other, church leaders are further responsible for what they share and teach (as Paul implies, Eph 4:20-22) since their definitive purpose and function is the katartismos (from katartizo, to restore to former condition for complete qualification) of church members to embody the whole ontology and function of God’s new creation family (Eph 4:12-13). The latter function for church leaders cannot be assumed without their reciprocal involvement in the former, no matter how “gifted” they are; nor can the former be assumed as an experiential reality for church leaders simply because they are engaged in the latter.

Paul assumes for church leaders in their purpose and function in katartismos that their own persons have been and continue to be anakainoo and ananeoo. If their ontology and function are not whole, then their theological anthropology has shifted (even by default) to a reduced ontology and function incongruent with the new creation, and consequently they no longer have functional significance for the embodying of God’s new creation family and the experiential truth of the gospel of wholeness, much less to assume a leadership function. Church leaders (including in the academy) need to understand that katartismos has functional significance only in dynamic interaction with their anakainoo and ananeoo, and that this ongoing interaction is requisite for their ministry to be integral for embodying the church as the pleroma of Christ, the whole of God’s new creation family. On no other basis can ministers of righteousness be distinguished.

            In Paul’s transformed ecclesiology, church leadership in the new creation is a new creation of those who are defined and determined by whole ontology and function, not by their roles and resources. These prominent gifts of the Spirit cannot be claimed apart from direct relationship with the Spirit. Thus, these persons are in reciprocal relationship with the Spirit for the ongoing involvement together necessary to build (oikodome) God’s new creation family in embodied whole (pleroma) ontology and function, which integrally involves their own person with persons together in transformed relationships both without distinctions and the veil. With this leadership the church is alive in the new relational order and grows in wholeness to maturity (teleios) as the pleroma of Christ (Eph 4:12-13). Therefore, Paul both expects this wholeness in church leaders and holds them accountable to be transformed persons who are agape-relationally involved in transformed relationships together that are conjointly equalized and intimate (Eph 4:14-16; Gal 5:6; 6:15). This expectation and accountability of church leaders was demonstrated earlier by Paul with Peter and Barnabas (Gal 2:13-14), and is demonstrated further with Titus, Timothy and Philemon.

            Titus and Timothy were Paul’s partners and coworkers in church leadership among various churches (1 Thes 3:2; 2 Cor 8:23; Rom 16:21). The depth of their relationship together as church leaders is expressed in Paul’s so-called Pastoral Epistles (1 & 2 Tim, Ti). Paul’s authorship of these letters is debated in Pauline scholarship because of questions involving them: lack of general knowledge of these letters prior to the second century along with the rest of Paul’s letters; terms and expressions not found in his undisputed letters; theological terms and concepts from undisputed letters either missing or used differently in the Pastorals; form of church order in Pastorals not found in undisputed letters; difficulty placing Pastorals into Paul’s known career; and they point to a softer, domesticated and somewhat idealized Paul. The sum of these questions suggests that the Pastorals appear to be the work of someone other than Paul (e.g. pseudonymous, final form by a secretary, his fragments compiled after his death). There are lingering unanswered questions about the Pastorals as representative of Paul himself.[2]

            I propose another alternative for the Pastorals: these letters are a compilation of Paul’s personal thoughts, advice and written notes communicated directly to Timothy and Titus, who formed them with the Spirit into personal letter form for some edifying purpose (not for nostalgic reasons) after Paul’s death, while contextualizing Paul in the church of this later period, thus accounting for apparent further development of church order and giving only the appearance of a softer Paul in his communication with these church leaders. Though Timothy and Titus may not have understood the full edifying purpose of compiling letters from Paul to each of them respectively, their reciprocal relational involvement with the Spirit for this cooperative effort points to God’s complete purpose for canonical inclusion. On this basis, I assume Paul’s unintended authorship of the form of these letters yet his full responsibility of their content for church leadership, which in their canonical inclusion are representative whole-ly of Paul and not mere Pauline fragments. This is not to say that Timothy and Titus constructed Paul’s thought, nor added their own shape to the Pauline corpus. They merely compiled what was from and of Paul—neither to idealize nor to give tribute to Paul—in cooperation with the Spirit in order to fulfill Paul’s oikonomia to pleroo the whole of God’s desires and thematic action to make whole the human condition in relationship together as God’s new creation family.

            For this relational purpose, what has become known as the Pastoral Epistles perhaps is better understood as Paul’s Album of Family Love—which is more than pastoral but further and deeper involves Family Letters for the whole relationship together necessary to be God’s whole family only on God’s qualitative relational terms. And in this relational purpose for church leadership, Titus needed for accountability just a condensed summary from Paul, while Timothy necessitated greater input and feedback from Paul in family love.

            Though not very much is known about Titus (he is absent from Acts), he became a key member of Paul’s team (2 Cor 2:13; 8:23), notably in mission to Corinth (2 Cor 7:6-15; 8:6-23), now to Crete (Ti 1:5), and later to Dalmatia (2 Tim 4:10). Paul appeared to have confidence in Titus to address the difficulties in these situations (Ti 1:5,13; 2:15). In a sense, it can be said that Titus became Paul’s troubleshooter for churches to function in transformed ecclesiology. This personal letter then needs to be understood for the edifying purpose for all church leaders to engage their responsibility for church ontology and function to be God’s new creation family together.

            Paul’s personal communication reminds Titus what is expected of him and for what he is accountable as a church leader, which extends to all church leaders. This is focused for Titus (and for Timothy) on the necessity of “sound doctrine/teaching” (hygianino, sound, healthy, from hygies, sound, whole, Ti 1:9; 2:1; 1 Tim 6:3; 2 Tim 1:13; 4:3). As Paul made clear to Timothy, this involved nothing less than the whole teaching congruent with the experiential truth of the whole gospel that was relationally entrusted to Paul (1 Tim 1:10b-11). What Paul illuminated to center their focus as church leaders cannot be reduced to a static notion of “sound doctrine,” which would be a reduction of the whole gospel, thereby reducing the experiential truth of the gospel’s functional and relational significance in wholeness. The functional consequence would be a different gospel under the veneer of “sound doctrine” and the relational consequence would involve a renegotiated ecclesiology, both of which are not exposed without the presence of the whole. It is this tension and conflict with reductionism of God’s relational whole that must be fully understood in these personal letters for them to constitute being from and of Paul. Only this whole understanding and accountability by church leaders extends Paul’s fight for the experiential truth of the gospel of transformation to wholeness, which by necessity defines and determines their katartismos of the church to embody the whole of God’s new creation family.

            The Titus communication stresses similar aspects as in 1 and 2 Timothy, yet without the personal challenges, charges and even “pushing” Paul used with Timothy (1 Tim 1:18; 4:6, 11-16; 6:11-14; 2 Tim 1:6-8, 13-14; 2:1-7; 4:1-2, 5). Even though I assume their compilation of Paul’s communication (oral and written) with each of them for their respective letters, this is not to suggest that Titus selectively left out those elements in his shorter account. Rather it illuminates that Timothy was less firm and decisive than Titus and thus needed more exhorting from Paul to be distinguished in whole ontology and function, not reverting back to reduced ontology and function even by default (e.g. back to timid Timothy)—that is, in what he presented of himself to others, in the quality of his communication and in the depth level of his relational involvement (the three unavoidable issues for all practice noted above). Paul, however, is not focused on Timothy becoming more assertive in his role as church leader, nor more dynamic with his gifts. Paul focuses Timothy only on living in his wholeness. The Greek Titus, even among Jews, seemed to more readily live in his whole ontology and function (e.g. 2 Cor 7:6,13; 8:6,16-17; 12:18; Ti 1:5), and likely was encouraged that Paul did not define him by external identity markers even on religious terms (Gal 2:3).

            In these Family Letters, Paul is not suggesting a certain type of personality to be effective church leaders. Paul’s nonnegotiable expectation of church leadership is unequivocally for wholeness in ontology and function and accountability as transformed persons agape-relationally involved in transformed relationships together without distinctions and the veil in the new relational order. His expectation and accountability are based on defining the person, engaging in relationships and practicing church (the three inescapable issues noted above) only in the new creation image and likeness of the whole of God—just as Paul made imperative for Timothy (1 Tim 4:12,15-16). Therefore, whether leaders are  “stronger” like Titus or “weaker” like Timothy, Paul holds all accountable in family love for nothing less and no substitutes—which included himself in all that he is, or isn’t (2 Cor 12:9).

            Paul’s expectation for church leaders to be accountable to be transformed persons relationally involved in transformed relationships together is even more clearly distinguished with Philemon. In his personal letter to Philemon, Paul identifies him as a beloved church leader in partnership with him and Timothy (Phlm 1,17). Extending our discussion from chapter eight, Philemon leads a house church in his own house (v.2), in which Paul indicates Philemon’s role as a benefactor and points to the deeper function of the church as family beyond a mere gathering (vv. 5,7,9-10). The prevailing sociocultural role of benefactor combined with a leadership relational function in the church as family creates tension and conflict, even incompatibility, if the basis for the benefactor (i.e. outer-in distinction of reductionism) becomes the defining measure of the leader and thereby the determining influence for the function of the church. By implication, Paul addresses a potential problematic ecclesiology that redefines the relational dynamic of an embodied family. Whenever a part(s) in the church body, even if that person is a benefactor providing for the physical existence of a house church, determines the whole of God’s family, then reductionism has taken effect, shaping the whole by the terms of a part(s)—becoming a gathering of reduced ontology and function in renegotiated ecclesiology.

            Paul writes to Philemon to take him further and deeper into the relational whole of God’s new creation family only on God’s relational terms, as a direct extension of his purpose for the Colossian letter (read also in the church at Laodicea). Therefore, the Philemon letter needs to be read, interpreted and understood by the qualitative lens (phroneo) from the whole framework (phronema) Paul established in Colossians for the whole knowledge and understanding (synesis) necessary for the pleroma of God, who constituted the embodying of the wholeness of the church. Paul was developing, yet had not fully articulated, transformed ecclesiology. In this process for Paul, Philemon is a key letter for church ontology and function to be the relational whole of God’s new creation family, and it becomes a functional bridge to Ephesians. In the Pauline corpus, Paul makes definitive in Ephesians the theological basis for Philemon’s relational function as a transformed person agape-relationally involved in transformed relationships together to embody the church’s whole ontology and function as family. These connections are integral in relational terms to distinguish the whole gospel and thereby its relational outcome of wholeness for the church.

            For Philemon, as both benefactor of this house church and slave owner of Onesimus, the process of involvement in transformed relationships necessarily both equalized and intimate is not a simple transformation, and likely a threatening engagement to make himself vulnerable to. This required from Philemon nothing less than ‘relationship together involving the whole person’. It is important to understand that Paul does not simply articulate to Philemon the expectation and accountability of church leadership. Because Paul writes from the whole of God’s relational context of family by the relational process of God’s family love (vv.9-10), Paul engages Philemon as a whole person (not merely as a benefactor or church leader) in a family dialogue within the very transformed relationships that he wants Philemon to experience further and deeper (vv.8,14). These are the distinguished relationships both equalized and intimate that constitute God’s new creation to be whole persons in whole relationship together in the image and likeness of God. Therefore, these whole church relationships are not reduced by the false distinctions of persons from outer-in function in relationships fragmented by vertical separation and/or horizontal distance. Whole church relational involvement together in family love is the relational and functional basis both for Philemon as a transformed church leader and for the church he leads to embody the transformed relationships together necessary as God’s new creation family (vv.15-16). How does this relational outcome happen?

 

Composed Only in Distinct Relational Terms

            Philemon’s challenge as a new creation was to function as a person being transformed from inner out, thus to be vulnerable in his whole person without defining himself by the roles he had and performed and without engaging relationships on that basis—the significance of relationships without the veil. Equally challenging for Philemon was to define Onesimus as a person without those distinctions who was also being transformed from inner out on the same basis, whereby to see each other as whole persons vulnerably from inner out—in other words, ‘relationship together involving the whole person’. On this basis, inseparably in integral function, Philemon’s further challenge was to vulnerably engage Onesimus from inner out to be relationally involved together in family love as equalized and intimate brothers; and for this new relationship together to be the relational basis for their church family would necessitate Philemon to restructure his own household operation (“business”) as a slave owner in order to deconstruct the old and reconstruct the new relational order embodying God’s new creation family. These challenges illuminate the tension and conflict between wholeness and reductionism, and the interrelated crucial issues of how we define ourselves and do relationships on that basis, and thus practice church on the same basis.

            Certainly, there was a human cost for Philemon to meet these challenges and engage in the relational work of equalizing. There was also a cost for engaging in intimate relationships but the cost was less obvious. It is important to understand a vital distinction about agape in this matter because Paul challenges (parakaleo) Philemon “on the basis of agape” (v.9). Paul was not calling upon Philemon for sacrificial action. There is indeed a human cost for equalizing relational work—first to be equalized within one’s own person and then to equalize all persons in relationships—which is similar to the divine cost of the embodied pleroma of God (cf. Phil 2:6-8; Col 1:19-20). To reemphasize, this cost involves ongoingly giving up the benefits or letting go of the burdens from all elements of reductionist human distinctions that reduce persons to the outer in and fragment relationships in vertical stratification and/or horizontal distance; by comparison the cost of human shaping is immeasurable. With the veil removed (along with the human coverings from the primordial garden), the person thus presented without reductionist distinctions involves submitting one’s whole person (as is, without the benefit or burden of those distinctions) to be vulnerably involved from inner out in relationships with others, therefore beyond the comfort or security of keeping distance in relationships. This vulnerability opens the functional door to the heart to engage the depth of agape, not as sacrifice but as intimate relational involvement together as family (Col 3:11,14-15; Gal 5:6; cf. 2 Cor 12:15; Rev 3:20). This is Jesus’ intrusive relational path that must compose the ontology and function of his followers and church.

            Agape family love was initiated by God’s thematic relational response of grace to the human condition. In this relational process of family love, God pursued persons like Paul, Philemon and even Onesimus, embraced them as they were from inner out, paid the cost to take them into his family and made them whole together as his very own sons and daughters (as Paul clarified, Gal 4:4-6). This irreducible relational process, irreplaceable relational action, and nonnegotiable relational involvement constitute the family love embodied by the pleroma of God to equalize and reconcile persons intimately together in God’s new creation family (as Paul made definitive, Col 1:19-22; 2:9-10; 3:10-11; Eph 2:4-5, 14-22).

            This is the agape by which Paul engages Philemon and into which he takes Philemon deeper. Family love is the depth of agape that changes incurring the above cost from the notion of a sacrifice, tending to signify a compelled obligation (ananke, “something forced,” Phlm 14). Rather family love emerges from a transformed heart by choice (cf. the agency of a subject), freely and uncompelled (hekousios, cf. the conformity of an object), which is how Paul encouraged Philemon to function. Paul is making this rigorous relational process of family love functional for Philemon, and all church leaders and members living in reductionist distinctions, in order to live as whole persons in whole relationship together without the veil, the embodying of God’s new creation family. On the relational-functional basis of family love, Philemon would give up a slave to gain a brother (“you might have him back forever, no longer as a slave but…a beloved brother,” vv.15-16), give up a household shaped by the surrounding context to gain whole family together (“but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord,” v.16). As Paul signified in his opening and closing greeting (vv.3,25), by the whole of God’s relational process of family love, he takes Philemon further and deeper into the importance of his whole person from inner out involved in the primacy of relationship together to be whole in the experiential truth of God’s family ‘already’, so that “your faith may become more effective when you specifically understand [epignosis] all the good that we may do for Christ” (v.6). This good was not about merely expressing morality or serving in mission but about deep involvement in relational family love together for the experiential reality of the gospel of transformation’s relational outcome of wholeness ‘already’. On this basis alone, the church and its ministry are composed in qualitative relational significance.

            Paul made unequivocal to Philemon, to all church leaders and to the entire church that the embodied church becomes alive in the new relational order only in family love to be whole-ly the new creation in relational likeness to the whole of God (Col 3:14-15). This is the relational purpose of Paul’s prayer for the church to specifically know from the Spirit God’s family love from inner out in order to whole-ly embody the pleroma of Christ (Eph 1:17; 3:14-19). Moreover, as Paul clarified for Timothy, this relational process of family love necessitates the whole person (pneuma and soma together) to embody the agape relational involvement for whole relationship together, by which Timothy would engage in reciprocal relationship with the Spirit (2 Tim 1:7,13-14; cf. Rom 8:14-15). This depth of agape is not engaged merely by the quantity of deeds one does or resources one gives, even in great sacrifice. Agape family love is a function only of relational involvement from inner out, therefore composed only in distinct relational terms. This relational function emerges only from persons (and notably church leaders) being restored to new again (anakainoo, Col 3:10) and being made new from inner out (ananeoo, Eph 4:23) to prepare and be prepared (katartismos) to embody the pleroma of Christ, and on this qualitative relational basis to live and make whole (Eph 4:12-16).

            Since family love is involvement of the whole person in reciprocal relationship together conjointly with each other and with the Spirit, another important necessity in this integral relational process is to submit one’s person to one another (hypotasso, Eph 5:21). Paul does not make this an imperative because as a participle (hypotassomenoi) it directly defines the relational means by which his prior relational imperatives for the church are engaged (Eph 5:1-2,8,15,18b). Hypotasso makes definitive both the relational nature of the new creation and the relational primacy of God’s new creation family before the individual, thus its priority over individual self-autonomy, self-determination or self-justification. Hypotasso becomes a reductionist act when taken out of the relational context of Paul’s imperatives and engaged apart from the relational process of family love.

            Family love in relational likeness of the whole of God is neither optional nor negotiable in Paul’s transformed ecclesiology. “Be imitators of God, as beloved children, and live in agape, as Christ loved us” are relational imperatives for the new creation church family, which by their very nature necessitate being submitted to one another based on experiencing the love from Christ’s submission. Hypotasso has been interpreted with a reductionist lens of human distinctions to mean to render obedience, be submissive, be subordinated, with implications of becoming objectified or reduced in ontology and function—notably for women and slaves as Paul’s prescriptions for them appear to suggest. Moreover, this interpretation has application only for certain persons to submit, not all. In interaction with his relational imperatives, however, Paul uses hypotasso as every person’s initiation of a voluntary relational action and should not be confused with a compulsory act of obedience or subordination to, for example, someone with authority, power or more status as defined by human distinctions. Paul’s relational dynamic of submitting one’s whole person to one another is a function only of family love extended to one another in relational likeness of Christ’s family love for us. Christ’s submission was not as an object conforming to the Father’s will but only as Subject-person in relational response of the whole of God involved both within the Trinity and with us. This reciprocal relational involvement of family love signifies the whole person giving primacy to the relationships together of God’s relational whole over an individual’s self-interests and self-concerns (cf. 1 Cor 10:23-24, 31-33; Eph 4:14,19)—yet without sacrificing the whole person’s significance in the family, for example, as experienced often in collective contexts and some human families. Personness is constituted from inner out in wholeness with the relational means of submitting one’s person, not by highlighting it from outer in. The underlying issue illuminated here is theological anthropology and its ontology and function.

            Paul’s interpretive lens for ‘submitting’ is not from human contextualization but from the whole of God’s relational context of family and relational process of family love vulnerably embodied by Jesus’ whole person, in pleroma Christology for pleroma soteriology ‘already’ to embody the pleroma of Christ (Eph 1:22-23). Therefore, in clear contradistinction to any self-centeredness of self-autonomy, any self-interests of self-determination, and any self-concerns of self-justification—all from the influence of reductionism and its counter-relational work fragmenting relationships together (as Paul clarified earlier, Gal 5:13)—Paul makes conclusive this vital relational dynamic for relationships together to function whole in relational likeness to God: submitting our whole person to one another in family love while in intimate relational response to Christ, who submitted his whole person to the Father in order to relationally embody the whole of God’s family love for us to be equalized and intimately made whole together in God’s new creation family. Only this distinct family love composes his church family in the new relational order.

            This relational whole in family love is what Christ saved us to ‘already’ to constitute the whole ontology and function of who the church is and whose the church is (Eph 2:4-5, 14-22). What emerges for all persons and relationships from this relational whole in ontology and function with family love is the new relational order integrally signifying and further constituting transformed persons agape-relationally involved in transformed relationships together (Eph 4:15-16, 23-25). This is the new relational order with its essential relational process of family love that Paul identified previously (Gal 5:6) and distinguished integrally in transformed ecclesiology for the new creation church to be embodied alive in wholeness (Eph 2:15b; 4:2-6; cf. Gal 6:15).

            Unequivocally for Paul, the church alive in wholeness distinctly in relational terms is the church composed in love, family love, agape family love in relational likeness to the whole of God. Yet, family love should not be idealized, nor should it be rendered to a “kingdom ethic.” Family love is vulnerable relational work, made difficult in the midst of counter-relational work from human shaping of relationships together. As Paul has made unmistakable to various church leaders and churches, engagement in family love is a relational process continuously subjected to human terms and shaping that should not be underestimated for diminishing this engagement. Consequently, just as leadership in the new creation faces ongoing tension and conflict with reductionism, the church as the new creation family is ongoingly challenged to be defined and determined by wholeness or reductionism, by the new or the old, by transformed ecclesiology or renegotiated ecclesiology. What emerges from the church and its leadership signifies either the gospel of transformation to wholeness or a different gospel, the latter which Paul defined as no gospel for the inherent human need and problem even in the church (Gal 1:6-7). And it warrants ongoing emphasis that the new creation church family should not be confused with a gathering of relational-epistemic orphans, no matter how much sacrifice has been made for gathering.

            A theological assumption Paul makes through the whole in his theology is that the new creation is ‘already’, even though not yet totally completed (2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15; Rom 6:4; Col 3:10; Eph 2:15b; 4:23-24). To embrace this assumption with Paul is to be accountable for its functional significance and implications both for the person and persons together as church, and for their witness and mission in the world—all of which assumes wholeness.

            Directly as a result of the new creation ‘already’ for Paul, the outcome emerges of having a qualitative new phroneo (mindset and lens) from a whole new phronema (framework for thought, Rom 8:2,5-6; cf. 12:2). It is from this whole interpretive framework with its qualitative lens that life is perceived in the innermost of qualitative zoe (not the limits of quantitative bios), and that peace is understood with the presence of wholeness (not the absence of conflict). Paul clearly distinguishes that this new interpretive framework with the Spirit is “life and peace” (v.6), and its interpretive lens determines the qualitative depth level of life discerned and its wholeness realized inner out. When the new phronema and phroneo function by the Spirit, what emerges in the church is distinct qualitative sensitivity and relational awareness that are vital for church practice to be whole.

            This new interpretive framework is critical for Paul in his discourse about peace throughout his letters and is essential for his readers to know and understand the whole in his theology. When Paul addressed the church at Corinth in their disputes, he illuminated “God is a God not of disorder but of peace” (1 Cor 14:33). This may appear to illuminate the obvious but that depends on our interpretive framework. The term for disorder (akatastasia) involves being without a fixed or settled condition. Since Paul added that their church life and practice should be “in order” (taxis, v.40), that is, according to a set of guiding principles or an established framework, there are various conditions of church life and practice that would appear sufficient to establish order in the church—even by maintaining tradition or the status quo (cf. Jesus’ interpretive lens, Mt 15:8-9). If Paul understood peace as merely the absence of conflict, then these various church conditions (including the status quo) would qualify as sufficient ecclesial order.

            A deeper tension and conflict emerge because this is not the peace of God that Paul illuminates. As urgent as disorder may be in some churches and around the world, Paul is deeply focused both on the quantitative of bios and the qualitative of zoe, with zoe always primary; and the absence of conflict does not adequately address the existing disorder, nor does it fulfill the order needed for the human condition, the inherent human relational need and problem neuroscience reminds us about. Before traditional churches applaud Paul’s position, they need to pay deeper attention to what Paul illuminates. The juxtaposition of disorder (akatastasia) with Paul’s peace reveals a critical distinction: Paul’s use of akatastasia is not merely about being in a fixed or settled condition of taxis—for example, order according to a set of guiding principles—but that this condition of akatastasia is a function of fragmentation, that is, practice that fragments the whole, even with the presence of ecclesial order; and that God is not a God of reductionism but the God of wholeness, who therefore does not fragment—either persons by distinctions or relationships by stratification—but who makes whole (cf. Jesus’ practice of peace, Mt 10:34). Moreover, what Paul further illuminates for his readers is that any ecclesial order (even with an established framework) without wholeness has no significance to God—as Paul further clarified later for the new creation church (Col 3:15; Eph 4:3).

            Paul’s synesis of peace, his whole understanding and depth of meaning, emerged with the Spirit in a new phronema with a new phroneo that deepened his focus. His synesis of wholeness included the epistemological clarification and hermeneutic correction from tamiym (cf. Gen 17:1), which helped him to integrally understand God’s relational work establishing the new relationship (siym) of wholeness (shalom) in God’s definitive blessing of his family (Num 6:24-26), and to relationally receive the wholeness that only Jesus gives (Jn 14:27) to embody the gospel of transformation to wholeness for the human condition (Eph 6:15). What Paul illuminated above about God and peace and extends in relational discourse throughout his letters made definitive this wholeness: the whole ontology and function of God, the whole of God’s thematic relational response to make whole the human condition, the new creation of human ontology and function in the qualitative image and relational likeness of the whole of God, and the embodying of the whole ontology and function of the church as God’s new creation family—the relational outcome of wholeness ‘already’ in the midst of reductionism. Therefore, Paul was not engaged in mere theological discourse for us to consider but rather what is imperative to distinguish who we are and whose we are.

            While Paul assumes the new creation ‘already’ and its relational outcome with the Spirit to embody the church’s whole ontology and function as God’s new creation family, he never assumes the church will live whole in its new relational order, and thereby make whole in the surrounding context of reductionism. To live in wholeness is the continuous challenge for the church because its ontology and function are ongoingly challenged by and susceptible to reductionism. The tension and conflict between wholeness and reductionism is ongoing with deep repercussions, which is why Paul settles for nothing less and no substitutes in his completeness (pleroma) theology.

            In Paul’s transformed ecclesiology, for the church to live in wholeness is for the church to be ongoingly involved relationally with the Spirit for its embodying together “in the bond of wholeness” (Eph 4:3). This bond (syndesmos) is the whole relationships  binding the church together from inner out as one interdependent body, which Jesus embodied for transformed relationships together both equalized and intimate (Eph 2:14-22). For the church to live in wholeness as God’s new creation family is to be deeply involved together in this new relational order of equalized and intimate relationships. This is what holds together the church in its innermost; and apart from these relationships together with the Spirit, there is just a fragmentary condition of the church—again, even with pervasive ecclesial order. When Paul illuminated “God is not a God of fragmentation but the God of wholeness,” he also made unequivocal that this new church relational order is neither optional nor negotiable. The challenge for Paul’s readers, then, becomes both about his assumption of the new creation ‘already’ and if God’s new creation family is truly the church. Paul’s transformed ecclesiology clearly defines these as inseparable and irreducible. Reductionism would renegotiate church order as sufficient alternative, perhaps even with its reification as the peace of God with irenic identity markers.

            In Paul’s ongoing fight for the gospel, wholeness is a theological given for the truth of the gospel, just as Peter, Barnabas and other church leaders experienced this truth  from Paul (Gal 2:11-14). They learned a difficult lesson about the experiential truth of the gospel (distinguished from only having a referential or doctrinal truth) that whole relationships together are a theological imperative for the functional significance of the gospel. The polemic Paul framed around the issue between the works of the law and faith is more deeply focused on the underlying conflict between reductionism and wholeness, either reduced ontology and function or whole ontology and function (Gal 2:19-21). Even though some of Paul’s readers may not affirm the relational outcome of the gospel until ‘not yet’ for whole persons and persons together in whole relationship, they still must account for the persons and persons together now in the image and likeness of God. Past, present and future, God is not a God of fragmentation but the God of wholeness. Even now, therefore, human terms and shaping of church life and practice are not sufficient to be of significance to God—despite the certainty of a church’s guiding principles and the long-established tradition of its framework. Reductionism is never an option or substitute for the whole of God and God’s relational whole embodied in the face of Christ, who has “shined on you and been gracious to you…and established the new relationship of wholeness.” This peace—from the God of peace embodied by the pleroma of God for the gospel of peace to fulfill the inherent human relational need and resolve the persistent human problem—must be accounted for by the church now. Doctrine alone is insufficient to account for this peace, tradition has been inadequate, and missional, servant, incarnational, inclusive and postmodern models for church are ambiguous. If the church is not directly dealing with the human shaping of relationships together, then the church is not addressing the human relational condition, both within itself and in the world. In the midst of reductionism, Paul is still exhorting his readers to “embody whatever is necessary to live the gospel of wholeness” (Eph 6:15).

            For Paul, God indeed is not a God of fragmentation but the God of wholeness, and therefore nothing less and no substitutes of the person and persons together in the new relational order are functionally significant for all of the following: to reciprocally involve the whole of God in distinct relational terms (Eph 2:17-22), to constitute God’s relational whole as family in his relational likeness (Col 3:10-11,15), and to embody the ontological identity and relational belonging that are necessary to fulfill the inherent human relational need and resolve the human problem existing both in the world and even within churches (Eph 3:6,10-12; 4:13-16). In transformed ecclesiology, the church in whole ontology and function signifies only transformed persons agape-relationally involved in transformed relationships together integrally equalized and intimate, composing the new relational order for the embodied church alive in wholeness in the qualitative image and relational likeness of the whole and holy God (Eph 4:23-25)—who is not a God of reductionism promoting ontological simulations and epistemological illusions. The relational messages to churches by Jesus in post-ascension illuminate only this whole of God.

            Persons and churches who don’t follow Jesus in relational terms distinct to his intrusive relational path will struggle to have the qualitative sensitivity and relational awareness needed to be new in function and thus to live whole in practice. The path to the new relational order composing his church is indeed a ‘narrow road with a narrow gate’. Yet, its distinct relational terms compose the church in the relationships that respond to, meet and fulfill the innermost desire, need and problem of all human persons since the primordial garden. Paul therefore made conclusive Jesus’ relational work of wholeness to compose his family with any and all persons; and in this relational outcome, the human shaping of persons and relationships are deconstructed, transformed and reconstructed whole in the new relational order that Jesus first embodied.

 

 

The Church Reconstructed as Equalizer

            When Paul emerged from the Damascus road following Jesus on his intrusive relational path, Paul was transformed by the Spirit so that what Jesus embodied whole unfolded into Paul both to constitute the whole of Paul’s person and to compose the wholeness of his theology, which always included composing his practice. Accordingly, what unfolded into Paul directly unfolded into the church to compose the whole of God’s new creation family. Paul therefore made conclusive Jesus’ relational work of wholeness to compose his family with any and all persons; and in this relational outcome, the human shaping of persons and relationships are deconstructed, transformed and reconstructed whole in the new relational order that Jesus first embodied. The church so reconstructed then becomes the only relational outcome that emerges from the gospel of transformation to wholeness. It is this relational outcome that distinguishes the church on Jesus’ intrusive relational path with the qualitative sensitivity and relational awareness both to live whole within itself and to make whole the human relational condition.

            And yet this relational outcome in the church is neither readily received from Jesus nor openly embraced by Paul’s readers, as if churches have either a better alternative for their condition or are satisfied with the status quo. Jesus into Paul persist to fight for the gospel of wholeness and against any and all reductionism.

            The relational outcome and order from the theological dynamics integrated in Paul’s completeness theology are distinguished clearly in the church only to the extent of their functional significance in church life and practice (Eph 5:8-14). Yet, functional significance is not as variable as many churches perceive. Paul’s transformed ecclesiology should not be confused with an elective-type referendum for local churches to define and determine their own life and practice according to contextualization in their surrounding settings; this would also be contrary to kathos in Jesus’ defining family prayer. Such construction results in a garden-variety of churches occupied in church building(s), the process of which is both distinct from the growth of God’s family and indistinguishable from church by human terms and shaping.

            Paul’s conjoint fight for the truth of the whole gospel (the theme in Gal) extended to the gospel of wholeness and shifted into the church (the theme in Eph). For Paul’s readers to fully understand what Paul fights for and against in Ephesians, we need to understand what he fights for and against in Galatians. The dynamic for both in which Paul is engaged signifies the development of the wholeness in his theology.

            Paul’s emergence from the Damascus road was the relational outcome of his experiential truth of the gospel—the good news for whole relationship together. The truth of this gospel is clearly illuminated by Paul in Galatians, which is less theological discourse about doctrinal purity and more relational dialogue about function together for wholeness (cf. Gal 2:12-13 and 6:16). The alternative to this gospel is labeled “a different gospel” by Paul (1:6). The subtlety of a different gospel becomes apparent only as the whole gospel is distinguished next to it (Gal 1:7,11-12), and the correct interpretive lens is used to pay attention to this crucial distinction and to ignore other human-shaped distinctions (3:1-3; 5:25-26). The issue of one’s interpretive lens is again critical to Paul’s polemic for determining what is defined as primary and significant in comparison to what is secondary and insignificant. A church unable to make this distinction becomes aligned to a different gospel by default. Paul identifies unmistakably what the interpretive lens of a different gospel is focused on: “to make a good showing in the flesh” (6:12), “to make a good impression outwardly” (NIV)—for example, for churches to build its reputation and add new members. The term euprosopeo (from euprosopos, pleasing in appearance) is focused on the person from outer in, whose function may be misleading (even unintentionally or unknowingly), as Peter’s and Barnabas’ was in their hypokrisis (i.e. outward identity inconsistent with inward), or whose function may be specious as was the function of some Christian Jews (6:13).

            Paul exposes the use of an outer-in interpretive lens to define the nature and function of a different gospel, the bias of which determines a greater importance of quantitative significance over qualitative significance. Any emphasis on the outer in is problematic for the gospel because its practice can even unknowingly give just the appearance (as in metaschematizo) of the gospel without its qualitative relational significance. Intentional or not, this becomes a reductionist gospel shaped by human terms and engaged by human effort rather than the whole gospel constituted by God’s thematic relational response of grace. This is the ongoing conflict between faith (or church) from below and faith (and the church) from above—an antinomy basic to relations between human persons and God (Gal 6:14). The former is focused on human distinctions from outer in with its quantitative interpretive lens, while the latter embraces whole persons from inner out with its qualitative new interpretive lens (5:6; 6:15). Ontology and function in wholeness also encompasses “the Israel of God,” which is not about faith based on human distinction (e.g. the notion of the God of Israel with its identity markers) with its comparative human effort (e.g. observing the torah) but is only God’s relational grace constituting the whole of God’s new creation family (6:16), as Paul later clarified theologically (Rom 2:28-29).

            Paul illuminated in Galatians the experiential truth of this whole gospel that distinguishes it from any ontological simulations and epistemological illusions from reductionism. The qualitative new interpretive lens, which is needed in order to pay close attention to this critical distinction while putting other human-shaped distinctions into deeper focus, is a key for Paul in his fight. This strongly indicates that Galatians needs to be the lens by which to read Paul’s letters and his theology in general, and Ephesians and his ecclesiology in particular. As Paul’s twofold fight shifted into the church, his readers need to use this qualitative new interpretive lens to understand the functional whole of his ecclesiology for the church to be embodied alive in wholeness as the equalizer from inner out.

            When Paul declares that “neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is anything” (Gal 6:15), the term for “anything” (tis) means having significance—which applies to all human distinctions identified earlier (3:28). That is, Paul makes conclusive that all human-shaped distinctions exist (eimi, verb of existence) without having significance. Consider this for what composes churches today. For Paul, life and practice in human distinctions is a reduced ontology and function that has no ontologically significant existence, only the new creation exists in the significance of whole ontology and function. Any life and practice shaped by human terms and based on human constructs from human contextualization have no ontological reality and thus no significance, but are only an ontological simulation and epistemological illusion from reductionism. All this needs to be deconstructed in the church in order to emerge transformed.

Paul makes further definitive that the only life and practice with ontological and functional significance is “faith functioning in reciprocal relational response of trust of one’s whole person both to be vulnerably involved with the person of Christ Jesus and to be agape relationally involved in family love with others for whole relationship together” (5:6). This relational dynamic integrally distinguishes the irreducible value and significance (ischyo, “counts for”) of the relationships together of God’s new creation family. Paul can be definitive because he was not engaged by Jesus according to Paul’s own human-shaped distinction; rather, Jesus intimately embraced Paul in family love and equalized him from inner out to relationally belong in God’s family. This was his experiential truth of the whole gospel, the relational outcome of which is now embodied in the whole ontology and function of the church. It is with this lens from Galatians that Paul’s transformed ecclesiology emerges to complete the ontological and functional significance of the new creation church as equalizer from the inner out.

            The human-shaped distinctions Paul has identified (Gal 3:28; 5:6; 6:15; Col 3:11) always need to be perceived and addressed within the ongoing tension and conflict between wholeness and reductionism. Paul’s purpose was not to eliminate all distinctions in the church but to neutralize the influence of such distinctions as primary for defining and determining life and practice. The fact of human differences and the reality of any valid distinctions are only secondary for Paul (1 Cor 12:12-13; Rom 12:3-5), and any meaning and significance given to them beyond being secondary directly fragment human ontology, function and relationships together in the church (e.g. 1 Cor 1:12-13; 3:4-5, 21-23; 4:6-7). Yet, it seems only natural to ascribe value to human differences, which is exactly Paul’s polemic addressing the need for redemptive change (1 Cor 3:3-4).

            Human differences evoke different responses from persons depending on their interpretive lens. When Paul argues “who sees anything different in you?” (diakrino, 1 Cor 4:7), he points to both who sees and what is seen as different. Who and what are interrelated in a reflexive dynamic: ‘what is seen’ is determined by a person’s interpretive lens, and in reflexive interaction ‘who sees’ also becomes determined by the nature of what is seen. The issue is between outer in and inner out (as Paul clarified later, 2 Cor 5:12). Whoever sees from outer in perceives outer-in differences as primary by which both others and they are defined and relationships together are determined. Whoever sees from inner out perceives any differences as only secondary, which thus neither define others and themselves nor determine their relationships together. Paul is confident in his polemic that any differences used “to treat persons differently by making distinctions” (diakrino) are the terms of human constructs—which either create further value differences from those differences, or boast about differences as their own when in fact they were only given to them by God. By the inescapable nature of a comparative process, these comparative values construct a deficit model (noted earlier), which is used for differential treatment of others who are different as being essentially less (diakrino). The critical issue with diakrino then is the human shaping of relationships together signifying the human condition—whether reflected, reinforced or sustained by church practice. Paul knows from his own relational involvement with God (Phil 3:4-9) that diakrino is of no significance to God and contrary to how God functions, and thus is in conflict with the integral basis determining the church’s life and practice (as Peter testified, Acts 15:9).

            Therefore, diakrino has no place or function in the new creation church embodied in the qualitative image and relational likeness of the whole of God. What is the functional significance of the church without diakrino?

            When Paul integrally defined the relational process of equalizing persons, with this new he exposed the human condition of persons in human distinctions valued as less (Eph 2:11-12). This involved the human shaping of relationships together that resulted in relational separation or distance (“far off,” makros, 2:13, cf. Isa 57:19). Theirs was a relational condition “to be apart” from God’s relational whole—that could include those in church gatherings—who were pursued in family love by Christ to be equalized and made whole together in God’s family (2:13-22). The contrast between the relational condition “to be apart” and made whole together parallels the relational condition of the temple prior to Jesus’ final entry into Jerusalem and after those closing days. God’s house had been stratified in the relational condition “to be apart” that denied access to persons of certain distinctions; this relational condition, after Jesus’ redemptive cleansing, was made whole as “a house of prayer for all nations” (Mk 11:15-17; cf. Isa 56:3-8). By his relational process of family love equalizing persons to be made whole together, Jesus shifted the temple from the outer in to its deeper significance inner out (1 Cor 3:16), in which the whole of God is intimately present and relationally involved to embody the church as God’s whole family together (Eph 2:18-22; Rom 8:9,14; cf. Jn 14:23; 17:21-23,26).

            There is a direct correlation between treating persons differently by making distinctions (diakrino) and who has equal access and intimate involvement in the church. The relational process of family love equalizing persons is an inner-out dynamic incompatible with diakrino, because treating persons differently by making distinctions is an outer-in dynamic that limits access and creates barriers to intimate relationships together for those having the distinction of being less. These limits and barriers are compounded by the threat of vulnerability to closer relationships, which is also a major motivation for maintaining such distinctions in church, including the academy. Paul makes unequivocal that these are limits and barriers from which Jesus redeemed persons to be equalized and reconciled together without human-shaped distinctions in order to be made whole in God’s family (Eph 2:14-16). For the church to have limits on accessibility based on distinctions, and barriers to intimate involvement due to distinctions, even unintentionally out of tradition or from the influence of culture, is to fragment God’s relational whole and to be reduced in ontology and function. This often subtle church practice renders Christ’s salvific work of wholeness incomplete and thereby lacking its relational significance to fulfill the inherent human relational need and resolve the human relational problem “to be apart” existing in the church.

            Making distinctions and treating persons differently are inseparable because human-shaped distinctions are rooted in a comparative process of more-or-less value, which engages relationships accordingly by treating persons differently (cf. Paul’s polemic, 2 Cor 10-12). The primacy of ‘relationship together involving the whole person’ is replaced by relationships shaped by human distinctions. Intentional or not, this is the dynamic that, for example, church leaders promote by emphasizing roles and gifts, and church members reinforce by treating leadership and themselves based on roles and gifts (e.g. 1 Cor 1:12; 3:5-7). In this dynamic, how well persons measure up to those expectations determines their position and influence in church. This often well-intentioned mutual engagement functionally (not theologically) limits those in a deficit position from full access in a church, which obviously creates vertical barriers to intimate relationships together. Further, since this dynamic is an outer-in process of engagement, there is also ongoing horizontal distance precluding intimate involvement together, for example, even among church leaders. The threat Jesus created with ‘relationship together involving the whole person’ is to this relational condition. This apparently acceptable relational distance in churches makes for a comfortable arrangement with minimal accountability, that is, for a gathering of relational-epistemic orphans, but not for God’s new creation family “in the bond of wholeness” (Eph 4:3). The contrast for Paul is between the counter-relational nature of outer-in function shaped by human terms and the relational nature of inner-out function in likeness of God.

            In Paul’s transformed ecclesiology, the bond of wholeness with the Spirit is embodied inner-out function of whole persons who relationally submit to one another in family love to be intimately involved in relationships together without the limits, barriers or comforts of human-shaped distinctions—signifying relationships without the veil. This relational process of equalizing from inner out needs to be distinguished in the experiential truth of church ontology and function, and not remain in doctrinal truth or as a doctrinal statement of intention, or else its experiential reality will be elusive. When doctrine causes an impasse, its function (not necessarily its theology) must be deconstructed for the relational process to unfold. This experiential truth happens only when the church is made whole by reciprocal relationship with the Spirit in the functional significance of four key dynamics, which reconstruct the church as equalizer. These key dynamics constitute the church to be embodied alive in wholeness in the qualitative image of God and to live ongoingly in whole relationship together in the relational likeness of the whole of God.

            Two of these keys for the church necessitate structural and contextual dynamics and the other two involve imperatives for individual and relational dynamics. In each dynamic, redemptive changes are necessary to go from a mere gathering of individuals to the new creation church family—changes that overlap and interact with the other key dynamics.

 

First Key Dynamic: the structural dynamic of access. While access can be perceived from outer in as a static condition of a church structured with merely an “open-door policy,” or with a ‘Welcome’ sign to indicate its good intentions, access from the inner out of God’s relational context and process of family is dynamic and includes relational involvement (not just a “welcome” greeting)—implied, for example, in Jesus’ transformation of the temple for prayer accessible by all. When Paul made Christ’s salvific work of wholeness conclusive for the church, he clarified that all persons without distinctions “have access in one Spirit to the Father” (Eph 2:18) for relational involvement together “in boldness and confidence” (3:12) as persons who have been equalized for intimate relationships together as God’s family (2:19-22; cf. Gal 4:4-7). Access, therefore, is the structural dynamic of the church without the stratifying barriers of diakrino, which is congruent with Christ’s relational work of wholeness (Eph 2:14-17) and is in relational likeness to God (Acts 15:9; Col 3:10-11).

            The issue of access is deeply rooted in human history. Peter himself struggled with his interpretive framework (phronema) and lens (phroneo) shaped by his tradition, whose diakrino denied access to those of Gentile distinction. Even after Jesus changed his theology (Acts 10:9-16), Peter struggled to change from the practice of his tradition because of his emotional investment and likely perception of losing something related to the privilege, prestige and power of having access. Such loss may not become apparent until placed in a lower position. Human-shaped distinctions signify having advantage in comparative relations, the absence of which precludes that advantage. After the primordial garden, the human relational condition “to be apart” became an intentional goal of human effort to secure advantage and maintain self-preservation—the ‘survival of the fittest’ syndrome masked even by religious faith. The specific resources for this relational advantage may vary from one historical context to another (cf. even the works of the law and justification by faith). Yet, privilege, prestige and power are the basic underlying issues over which these relational struggles of inequality are engaged—whether the context is family, social, economic, political or even within or among churches. Any aspects of privilege, prestige and power are advantages (and benefits) that many persons are reluctant to share, much less give up, if the perception (unreal or not) means for them to be in a position of less. The control of this distribution is threatened by equal access.

            The unavoidable reality for churches is that human-shaped distinctions create and maintain advantage, which certainly fragments relationships together. Inescapably then in church practice, by their very nature human distinctions are an outer-in dynamic emerging from reduced ontology and function, which in itself already diminishes, minimalizes and fragments God’s relational whole (cf. the disparity in the early church, Acts 6:1). Access, however, is an inner-out dynamic signifying the relational dynamic and qualitative involvement of grace. That is, the functional significance of access is for all persons to be defined from inner out and not to be treated differently from outer in (including church leaders), in order to have the relational opportunity to be involved with God for their redemption from the human struggle of reductionism, and thereby to be equalized and intimately reconciled together to fulfill their inherent human relational need in God’s relational whole (as Paul clarifies in his polemic, Gal 3:26-29). Equal access does not threaten personhood and wholeness for the church, but is a necessary key dynamic for their qualitative development whole-ly from inner out. Therefore, for a church to engage the necessary redemptive change that reconstructs its practice and makes functionally significant ‘access without diakrino’ is relationally specific to what whole-ly embodies church life and practice for only this relational purpose: the ongoing relational involvement with persons who are different, in order for them also to receive equally and experience intimately the ontological identity and relational belonging to the whole of God’s new creation family.

            This structural dynamic flows directly to the contextual dynamic.

 

Second Key Dynamic: the contextual dynamic of reconciliation absorbing human differences and valid distinctions. This is not a contradiction of the church without diakrino, but the acknowledgement of the fact of differences in human makeup and the reality of valid distinctions given by God, without the church engaging in diakrino. The ancient Mediterranean world of Paul’s time was a diversity of both human differences and human-shaped distinctions. Yet, prior to its diaspora due to persecution (Acts 8), the early church community was a mostly homogeneous group who limited others who were different from access to be included in their house churches, table fellowships and community identity (e.g. Acts 6:1). Despite a missional program to the surrounding diversity, church practice had yet to relationally involve the reconciliation dynamic of family love to take in those persons and absorb (not dissolve) their differences, that is, on a secondary level without using any human differences (notably of the dominant group) to determine the primary level of church ontology and function (as Paul made conclusive, Col 3:15). This purposeful relational involvement necessitates a major contextual change in the church, especially for a homogeneous gathering. Paul was pivotal in bringing such redemptive change to the church (e.g. 1 Cor 11:17-22; Gal 2:1-10).

            Paul delineates a twofold reconciliation dynamic constituted by God’s relational process of family love. On the one hand, family love dissolves human-shaped distinctions and eliminates diakrino. Equally important, on the other hand, family love absorbs most human differences into the primacy of relationships together, without dissolving or assimilating those differences into a dominant framework (Rom 12:4-5). The twofold nature of this reconciliation dynamic of family love is the functional significance of Paul’s integrated fight against reductionism and for wholeness (1 Cor 12:12-13). Yet, in order to be God’s relational whole, it is not adequate to include persons of difference for the purpose of diversity (e.g. to have a multicultural church). The relational process of family love extends relational involvement to those who are different, takes in and vulnerably embraces them in their difference to relationally belong integrally to the church family. This is the dynamic made essential by Paul for the church’s “unity of the Spirit in the bond of wholeness” (Eph 4:3,16).

            This reconciliation dynamic signifies the contextual change necessary for the church to be ongoingly involved in the relational process of absorbing human differences into the church without dissolving or assimilating those differences. Churches typically are not constructed with this design. What is needed, therefore, is a church’s willingness to change to adjust to differences and even to adopt some differences, all of which are only compatible with God’s relational whole and congruent with God’s relational terms. Redemptive change also involves the reflexive interaction between these contextual and structural dynamics for the necessary reconstruction of church to become the equalizer in its new relational order.       

            In addition, just as Peter was chastened by Christ in his interpretive framework and theology, and humbled by Paul, making this contextual change functional in the church may require us to humbly accept the limitations of our current interpretive framework (phronema) and lens (phroneo) to understand the significance of differences to the whole of God as well as of those in the whole and holy God. It also requires us to honestly account for any outer-in bias necessitating a whole phronema and a qualitative phroneo (as Paul delineated, Eph 4:22-25). This humility and honesty are essential for the church’s contextual dynamic of reconciliation to be of functional significance to absorb human differences into church life and practice as family together (cf. Eph 4:2).

 

            The importance of these structural and contextual dynamics for the church to be whole as the equalizer from inner out also directly involve the other two key dynamics. These are dynamics for the individual person and our relationships. The four dynamics strongly interact together in reflexive relationship that suggests no set order of their development and function. Yet, there is a clear flow to each pair of dynamics—for example, there has to be access before differences can be absorbed—while in crucial and practical ways the latter pair will determine the extent and significance of the former’s function.

 

 

Third Key Dynamic: the person’s inner-out response of freedom, faith and love to others’ differences. When a person is faced with differences in others, there is invariably some degree of tension for that person, with awareness of it or not. The tension signifies the engagement of our provincial context or ‘our little world’ we live in—that which is constructed from the limitations of the person’s perceptual-interpretive framework and shaped by culture in the surrounding context, which is why humbly accepting its limits and honestly accounting for our bias are needed for the reconciliation dynamic to be whole together. What does a person(s) do with those differences in that relational context? The structural and contextual dynamics can be invoked, yet their functional significance interacts with and will ultimately be determined by the individual person’s response, composed in vulnerable relational terms and not by mere referential terms enhanced even with good intentions.

            The person’s response will emerge either from outer in or inner out. What differences we pay attention to and ignore from our interpretive lens are critical  to understand for the following ongoing interrelated issues: first, what we depend on to define our person and maintain our identity; then, on this basis, how we engage relationships in these diverse conditions; and, thus, based on these two issues what level of relationship we engage in within the church. These are inescapable issues that each person must address as an individual and be accountable for, on the one hand, while the church community must account for these in practice at the same time.

            Paul demonstrated the person’s inner-out response to others’ differences that is necessary both to be a whole person and to be involved in whole relationship together. In his fight for the gospel, Paul is also always fighting against reductionism. One aspect of the relational outcome of the gospel is the freedom that comes from being redeemed. Yet, for Paul the whole of the gospel is not a truncated soteriology but the whole relational outcome of pleroma soteriology. He composes Christian freedom in the relational context of God’s relational whole so that the relational purpose of Christian freedom and its functional significance would not be diminished, minimalized or abused in reductionism (Gal 5:1,13; 1 Cor 8:9). From this interpretive framework and lens, Paul highlights his own liberty and the nature of his relational response to others’ differences (1 Cor 9:19-23). He deeply engaged the relational dynamic of family love in the process of submitting his whole person to those persons, simply declaring “I have become all things to all people” (v.22). Clearly, by his statement Paul is not illustrating what to do with the tension in those situations created by human differences and how to handle those differences. Further clarification is needed, however, since his apparent posture can be perceived in different ways, either negatively or positively.

            Given his freedom, Paul was neither obligated nor coerced to function in what appears to be an absence of self-identity. His response also seems to contradict his relational imperative to “Live as children of light” (Eph 5:8). Yet, in terms of the three unavoidable issues for all practice (noted above), the person Paul presented to others of difference was not a variable personality who has no clear sense of his real identity (e.g. as light). Nor was Paul communicating to them a message of assimilating to their terms, and to try to fit into their level of relationship or even masquerade in the context of their differences. Contrary to these reductionist practices, Paul engaged in practices of wholeness. Since Paul did not define his person in quantitative terms from the outer in, he was free to exercise who he was from inner out and to decisively present his whole person to others even in the context of any and all of their differences—which always remained in secondary distinction from the primary. He communicated to them a confidence and trust in the whole person he was from inner out, the integrity of which would not be compromised by involvement with them in their difference and could be counted on by them to be that whole person in his face-to-face involvement with them. His involvement with them went deeper than the level of their differences and freely responded in the relational trust with the Spirit (the relational involvement of triangulation) to submit his whole person to them in their differences for the relational involvement  of family love needed for the relational purpose “that I might by all means save some” (v.22). Paul submits his whole person to them in family love not for the mere outcome of a truncated soteriology of only being saved from but for the relational outcome of also being saved to gained from “the whole gospel so that I may share in its blessings of whole relationship together as family” (v.23).

            In the face of others’ differences, Paul neither distanced himself from them by remaining in the province of ‘his little world’, nor did he try to control them to assimilate and fit into his world and the comforts of his framework. In contrast, he acted in the relational trust of faith to venture out of his old world and beyond the limitations that any old interpretive framework imposes on personness and relationships in order to illuminate the wholeness of God in the midst of reductionism. In this relational process, he also illuminated the relational need of the person and persons together as church to have contextual sensitivity and responsiveness to others’ differences, without reducing their own ontological identity of who and whose they are. Clearly, Paul demonstrated the necessary response of the whole person from inner out to those differences in order to engage those persons in the reconciliation dynamic of family love for their experience in the relational whole of God’s family. Yet, Paul’s response also demonstrated the needed changes within the individual person involving redemptive change (old “worlds,” frameworks and practices dying and the new rising). This process addresses in oneself any outer-in ontology and function needing to be transformed from inner out (metamorphoo, as Paul delineated, Rom 12:2-3). This transformation from outer in to inner out not only frees the relational process for the new creation but directly leads to its embodying in the new relational order. Redemptive change must antecede and prevail in the relational process leading to reconciliation to the whole of God’s new creation family.

            In the freedom of the person’s inner-out response to submit one’s whole person to others in family love, the act of submitting becomes a reductionism-issue when it is obligated or coerced apart from freedom. Freedom itself, however, becomes reductionist when it is only the means for self-autonomy, self-determination or self-justification, which are the substitutes from reductionism. Paul clarified that God never redeems us to be free for this end (Gal 5:1,13; cf. 1 Cor 7:35). God frees us from reductionism to be whole (1 Cor 10:23-24). Redemption by Christ and what he saves from are inseparable from reconciliation and what he saves to. The integral function of redemptive reconciliation is the whole (nonnegotiable) relational process of the whole (untruncated) relational outcome of the whole (unfragmented) gospel. Therefore, it is crucial for our understanding of the inseparable functions of personness and human relationships, both within the church and in the world, to understand that deeply implicit in the wholeness of Christian freedom is being redeemed from those matters causing distance, barriers and separation in relationships—specifically in the relational condition “to be apart” from whole relationship together, which if not responded to from inner out leaves the inherent human relational need unfulfilled even within churches.

            In this dynamic for personness, for example, can women or slaves submit their persons without falling into reduced ontology and function? Paul’s prescriptions and directives for them can be taken or applied in the negative if separated from the function of relationships in wholeness together from the inner out (discussed shortly). Personness is an inner-out function of the individual person always in relationship with other persons (different or not), never in isolation regardless of the extent of freedom the individual person has. Therefore, whether women and slaves are those responded to in their difference or are the persons responding without being determined by their difference, the focus for Paul always centers on wholeness for persons in relationship together in the qualitative image and relational likeness of God.

            Paul’s exercise of freedom in submitting his whole person to others in family love was constituted by the convergence of the theological dynamics of complete Christology in full soteriology with whole pneumatology for transformed ecclesiology to be involved in the relationships together necessary to embody the church as equalizer from inner out. This is what Paul condenses in the gospel of transformation to wholeness vulnerably embodied in the face of Christ, which has the relational outcome ‘already’ of only whole persons agape-relationally involved in whole relationships together.

 

            The integral function of whole persons and whole relationships together are deeply integrated, and their interaction must by their nature emerge from inner out. For the person and persons together as church to have the functional significance of being equalized in intimate relationships, their ontology and function need to be whole from inner out—nothing less and no substitutes for the person and for relationships together. This inner-out process leads us from the key dynamic for the individual to its interaction with the key dynamic for relationships.

 

Fourth Key Dynamic: relationships engaged vulnerably with others (different or not) by deepening involvement from inner out. The dynamic engaged within individual persons extends to their relationships. What Paul defined as his whole person’s inner-out response—“I have become all things to all people”—also defines his relational involvement with them by making his whole person vulnerable from inner out—“I have made my person vulnerable to all human differences in order for the inner-out relational involvement with all persons.” This decision to engage relationships vulnerably must be a free choice made with relational trust and in family love because there are risks and consequences for such involvement. On the one hand, the consequences revolve around one’s person being rejected or rendered insignificant. The risks, on the other hand, are twofold, which involves either losing something (e.g. the stability of ‘our little world’, the certainty of our interpretive framework, the reliability of how we do relationships) or being challenged to change (e.g. the state of one’s world, the focus of one’s interpretive lens and mindset, one’s established way of doing relationships). The dynamic of ‘losing something-challenged to change’ is an ongoing issue in all relationships, and the extent of the risks depends on their perception from outer in or from inner out. For Paul, this is always the tension between reductionism and wholeness, that is, between relationships fragmented by limited involvement from outer in and relationships made whole by deepening involvement from inner out. Regardless of the consequences, Paul took responsibility for living whole in relationships for the inner-out involvement necessary to make relationships whole together, because the twofold risks were not of significance in wholeness but only in reductionism (cf. his personal assessment, Phil 3:7-9; also his challenge to Philemon).

            Later, Paul appeared to qualify the extent of his vulnerable involvement in relationships by stating “I try to please everyone in everything” (1 Cor 10:33). The implication of this could be simply to do whatever others want, thereby pleasing all and not offending anyone (10:32)—obviously an unattainable goal that doesn’t keep some persons from trying, Paul not among them. Paul would not be vulnerable in relationships with this kind of involvement. Aresko means to please, make one inclined to, or to be content with. This may involve doing either what others want or what they need. Paul is not trying to look good before others for his own benefit (symphoros, 10:33). Rather he vulnerably engages them with the relational involvement from inner out that they need (not necessarily want) for all their benefit “so that they may be saved to whole relationship together in God’s family.” In his statement, Paul does not qualify the extent of his vulnerable involvement in relationship with others by safely giving them what they want. He qualifies only the depth of his vulnerable involvement by lovingly giving them what they need to be whole, even if they reject his whole person or try to render his whole function as insignificant (cf. 2 Cor 12:15).

            This deepening relational involvement from inner out to vulnerably engage others in relationship with one’s whole person certainly necessitates redemptive change from our prevailing ways of doing relationships, including from a normative church interpretive lens of what is paid attention to and ignored in church gatherings and relationships together. If the vulnerability of family love is to be engaged, whether by the individual person or persons together as church, the concern cannot be about the issue of losing something—something that has no significance to wholeness. The focus on such risks will be constraining, if not controlling, and render both person and church to reduced ontology and function, hereby exposing the greater risk of being challenged to change and their need for it. Faith as relational trust in ongoing reciprocal relationship with the Spirit is critical for freeing us to determine what is primary to embrace in church life and practice and what we need to relinquish control over “for the unity of the Spirit in the bond of wholeness” (Eph 4:3; Gal 5:16,25). The bond of wholeness by its nature requires change in us: individual, relational, structural and contextual changes. With these redemptive changes for person and church, the integral function of redemptive reconciliation can emerge in family love for vulnerable engagement of others (different or not) in relationships together from inner out. Such reconstruction by design becomes, lives and makes whole in the new relational order.

 

            The dynamic flow of these four key dynamics is the dynamic of wholeness composing the experiential truth of the church’s ontology and function as equalizer from inner out. In ongoing tension and conflict with the church in the bond of wholeness is reductionism seeking to influence every level of the church—individuals, relationships, its structure and context. For Paul, this is the given battle ongoingly extended into the church, against which reductionism must be exposed, confronted and made whole by redemptive change at every level of the church. While Paul presupposes the need for redemptive change given the pervasive influence of reductionism, he never assumes the redemptive-change outcome of the new emerging without the reciprocal relational involvement of the Spirit (2 Cor 3:17-18; Gal 5:16; 6:8; Rom 8:6; Eph 3:16). The reciprocal nature of the Spirit’s relational involvement makes change an open question. These redemptive changes at all levels of the church certainly do not occur smoothly or in linear order, as Paul’s dealings with Peter and Philemon demonstrate. The interaction between the four key dynamics frequently influences how the functional significance of one key dynamic may be contingent on the redemptive change made necessary by another key dynamic. Both Peter and Philemon could not practice church-without-diakrino or reconciliation absorbing differences until they were free in their own persons to be vulnerable from inner out with others, notably in Jew-Gentile relations and with slaves.

            The relational outcome ‘already’ of the church as equalizer, however, becomes problematic in Paul’s own corpus if his position on slaves and women is not clarified. Whole understanding of Paul is needed on these matters, which can be gained from discussion of the following questions.

 

Given Paul’s emphasis on the relational outcome ‘already’ of God’s relational response to the human condition, how is Paul’s discourse on slaves congruent with this relational outcome, and his directives for them compatible with its function in transformed relationships together?

 

           As we discuss slaves in this question, and women in the next question, the issue of freedom and its determinative dynamic of redemption are basic to both. In Paul’s completeness theology, part of the outcome of redemption is to be free, but it cannot end here or the outcome becomes fragmentary and reduced in human ontology and function. The full outcome of redemption is a relational outcome. Redemption in Christ is not about just being set free and Christian freedom is not the freedom to be free—that is, for self-autonomy, self-determination, or even a variation of self-justification. We are redeemed to be made whole in ontology and function for the primacy of relationship together with the whole of God and with God’s whole family, which is the relationship that the Creator originally created in God’s likeness and that the whole of God redemptively reconciles in the new creation.

           Paul’s relational discourse on slaves (and women) is from this framework within this context, by which his theological dialogue must be interpreted and understood. Otherwise, his readers are left with only the human contexts of Paul’s situations to frame his dialogue with slaves, and as a result will go no further and deeper into his framework in the context of relationship with God. This is the primary context and only relational purpose into which Paul contextualizes these theological issues and their human shaping.

           There are two levels of slavery for Paul:

1.  Slavery embedded in social conditions, thus from outer in (cf. 1 Tim 6:1).

2.  Slavery embodied in the human condition, thus from inner out (cf. Rom 6:6).

These two levels interact, with the first emerging from the second and the first confirming or reinforcing the second. Paul always contextualizes level one in the workings of level two. Therefore, Paul always gives greater priority to level two over the first, because two underlies one and is necessary to be redeemed in order for level one to have full redemption. Yet, in what appears contrary to his directives for slaves in level one, Paul neither ignores this level nor accepts it due to its underlying condition in the sin of reductionism.

           Paul addressed all sin of reductionism (slavery in both levels, cf. Phlm) while he was focused on being whole, God’s relational whole on God’s relational terms. This integral dynamic is critical to Paul’s discourse. Redemption is neither an end in itself for slaves nor sufficient to deal with the sin of reductionism in the human condition involved in slavery. Paul is unequivocal that we are not redeemed just to be free but for whole relationships together (Gal 5:1, 13-14; cf. 1 Cor 8:9-13). Relationships together necessitate a process of reconciliation to be in conjoint function with redemption for the redemptive reconciliation required for relationships together to be whole on God’s qualitative relational terms from inner out, not shaped by human terms from outer in (cf. Rom 14:13-19). Paul neither pursues redemption over reconciliation nor does he sacrifice reconciliation for the sake of redemption since there cannot be wholeness for slaves and their relationships without this reconciliation. These are critical distinctions to make to guide all efforts in helping persons in such defining situations.

           When Paul directs slaves in the social conditions of slavery, who are also part of the church, to submit to their masters (Col 3:22-24; Eph 6:5-7; 1 Tim 6:1-2; Tit 2:9-10; cf. for masters, Col 4:1; Eph 6:9), he did not define an obligation (or duty, opheilo) or an ethical framework for slaves to conform to. Paul is focused on slaves being whole and the relational outcome of whole relationship together for slaves; this was always primary for Paul. That is, he calls for their congruity from inner out with the ontological identity of both who they are and whose they are, without outer-in distinctions defining their persons. And he takes them further and deeper into their whole function on God’s qualitative relational terms to live whole together and even to make whole in the world, without outer-in terms and circumstances in the surrounding context determining their primary life and function. Paul’s implied message to slaves is that freedom does not guarantee their whole ontology and function, nor does being a social-level slave preclude it.

           Since Paul defines the ontological identity of God’s new creation family without outer-in distinctions like “slave or free” (Gal 3:28; Col 3:11), and did not determine its function by situations and circumstances, he did not give those matters priority over being God’s relational whole. Therefore, as discussed above about Philemon and Onesimus, Paul’s primary focus was not on the social conditions of slavery but on the primacy of a slave’s redemptive outcome of relational belonging and ontological identity in God’s family, and on the redemptive reconciliation of slavery’s human condition necessary for persons like Philemon and Onesimus to be equalized brothers in this new family composed in the new relational order. This process of equalization certainly then will have direct relational implications for the social level of slavery, but even more important for Paul was his intended purpose for social-level slaves in whole ontology and function to plant the seeds, cultivate and even grow whole relationships together, first within the church and then in the surrounding context in order for these whole persons to be further composing the new relational order. It is imperative for all persons, in slave-like situations or not, to not allow (even by default) our situations to define our persons and determine our relationships by these secondary matters, and thereby be reduced in the primacy of whole ontology and function. No doubt this affects and challenges women more than other persons.

 

Equally important, if not more, how are Paul’s new creation view of women and his prescriptions for them in agreement, and how are his directives compatible for the relational outcome of God’s new creation family?

 

           The above discussion on slaves extends in direct application to women, who likely occupy the lowest position in any human distinction. I have purposefully placed this discussion on the church as equalizer for last, but not since women have traditionally occupied last place. Rather because, in my opinion, women signify the most consistent and widespread presence of reduced human ontology and function in the history of human contextualization, this condition is inevitable for all persons to address for our wholeness. Theological discourse and pronouncements have not significantly changed the embodiment of this human condition and its human shaping of relationships, perhaps due to ignoring its enslavement. Paul has been placed at the center of this human divide that fragments the church and renders God’s family “to be apart” from being whole in likeness of the relational whole of God—a condition existing knowingly or unknowingly, intentionally or unintentionally, nevertheless an existing condition today still needing to be deconstructed, transformed and reconstructed to be whole together in the new relational order. As long as this condition of reduced human ontology and function continues, the relational outcome ‘already’ will not be our experiential truth and reality until ‘not yet’. Any significant change will require challenging the referentialization of the communicative word from God that Paul was responsible to pleroo for the church’s wholeness—his family oikonomia signifying the pleroma of God into Paul (Col 1:25).

           Paul would dispute how his relational discourse on women has been interpreted; he would expose and confront the reductionism underlying such interpretation and application for the reduced ontology and function of women—for example, by both complementarians and egalitarians. Yet, his prescriptions and directives for women will have to be clarified in order for Paul to be vindicated, his theological anthropology affirmed and his complete ecclesiology in transformed relationships together to be the experiential truth ‘already’.

           The issue of Christian freedom continues in Paul’s relational discourse, which he always frames, defines and determines by the dynamic of redemption and baptism into Christ. Just as Paul defined for slaves, the importance of women having freedom is never about self-autonomy and self-determination or self-justification, but only to be whole in ontology and function, not yoked to reduced ontology and function (Gal 5:1). This also applies to men, and any other classification of persons. The issues of freedom and of wholeness are critically interrelated for Paul; and, as was discussed earlier for slaves, having freedom is no guarantee of whole ontology and function. The dynamic of redemption and baptism into Christ is the functional bridge between freedom and wholeness. Paul makes this link definitive.

           From the interpretive lens of his theological framework, Paul’s definitive view of women is that “there is no longer male and female” (Gal 3:28). His perception could be taken as contrary to the reality of creation, yet Paul is not implying that there are no physical and biological differences between the genders, and thus that no distinctions should be seen. Paul’s view is this definitive declaration: In the dynamic of baptism into Christ, the redemptive outcome is the human ontology freed from being defined and the human function freed from being determined by the gender differences of any kind shaped or constructed by human terms, whether in the surrounding context or even within churches (certainly from a reduced theological anthropology). These human differences are used to create distinctions that reduce the whole human ontology and function of those baptized into Christ’s death and raised with him by the Spirit in the whole image and likeness of creator God (Col 3:10-11; 2 Cor 3:18).

           As Paul clearly distinguishes, the person emerging from baptism is a new creation, whose ontology and function from inner out cannot be defined and determined by any differences and distinctions from outer in, not even by one’s gifts or role in the church. This transformation from inner out in the redemptive change to whole human ontology and function also integrally involves reconciliation to the whole of God in God’s family, which is constituted in the process of redemptive reconciliation to the transformed relationships together both intimate and equalized (Eph 2:14-22). As with slaves, Paul’s concern for women is their whole ontology and function and the relational outcome of whole relationship together without both distinctions and the veil, of which women are an integral part and of whose function women are the key in the vulnerable relational process composing the new relational order. Yet, it has been difficult for Paul’s readers (both women and men) to reconcile his decisive view of women with his prescriptions and directives for them.

           In his relational discourse, Paul continues to integrate Christian freedom with redemption, which is inseparably conjoined with reconciliation. Also in his theological dialogue, Paul integrates the redemptive-reconciliation dynamic with the creation narrative for the redemptive outcome in the image and likeness of God. This convergence features deeply in his main directives for women, and this convergence must be accounted for to understand where Paul is coming from in his relational discourse. Reviewing hermeneutic factors in interpreting Paul, though he speaks in a human context involving women and speaks to their human context, Paul is not speaking from a human context. His prescriptions and directives for women are contextualized beyond those human contexts to his involvement directly in God’s relational context and process. These directives emerged in human contexts, along with his letters, but were composed from the further and deeper context of the whole of God—which is the significance of Paul’s convergence I will attempt to account for in this limited discussion.

           There are two main directives representative of Paul’s relational discourse with women and his theological discourse in relational terms (not referential) for all persons: 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 and 1 Timothy 2:8-15.

 

1 Corinthians 11:3-16

           This section of Paul’s letter must be read in the full context of his letter. From the beginning Paul was dealing with the reductionist practices fragmenting this church (1:10-15). While confronting these persons in family love throughout the letter, in fairness to them and for their encouragement Paul puts their context into a larger picture of God’s people (10:1-11) and their practices into the deeper process of the dynamic of redemption and baptism into Christ (10:16-17). This exposed the sin of reductionism common not only in Israel’s history but the history of humankind (“common to everyone,” 10:13). Despite its normative character and structural nature, human contextualization and its common practices are incompatible with God’s (10:21); therefore, Christian freedom must function on God’s relational terms, not human terms (10:23-24, 31-33).

           On this basis, Paul’s relational discourse with women continues, with its convergence with the creation narrative. Earlier in his letter, Paul had defined conclusively for this fragmented church: “‘Nothing beyond what is written,’ so that none of you will be puffed up in favor of one against another” (4:6). The comparative dynamic Paul magnifies here is the natural relational consequence of reduced human ontology and function defined from outer in and determined by human terms, that is, beyond God’s qualitative relational terms revealed in God’s communicative word written in Scripture. In this section on women, Paul restores the focus to what is written in the creation narrative in order to illuminate the relational outcome from the dynamic of redemption and baptism into Christ (1 Cor 10:16-17; 12:13). If the creation narrative does not converge with this dynamic in the intended focus of Paul’s interpretive lens, then the relational outcome will be different for Paul’s readers, and neither compatible with his relational discourse nor congruent with his theological dialogue.

           Paul’s focus can be misleading due to the explicit aspects he highlights in the creation narrative, namely, chronological or functional order and quantitative significance. Yet, Paul’s focus remained on God’s communicative action in the words written, without disembodying those relational words in the narrative, which then would be essentially to go beyond what is written, notably by narrowing it down through referentialization and thereby shaping what is written beyond what God communicated..

           In chronological and functional order, Christ participated in the creation of all things and its whole, as Paul later made definitive in the cosmology of his theological systemic framework (Col 1:16-17). Thus, “Christ is the head [kephale, principal or first] of every created man” (1 Cor 11:3). The embodied Christ also became the kephale “over all things for the church” (Eph 1:22) and the first to complete the dynamic of redemptive reconciliation as its functional key (Col 1:18). Whether Paul combines the embodied Christ with creator Christ as the kephale of man is not clear in 1 Cor 11:3. Conversely, the creator Christ certainly has the qualitative significance of the embodied Christ, yet highlighting the chronological-functional order has a different emphasis in this context. This quantitative difference is confirmed by “the head of Christ” is God. Since the Creator (the Father and the Son with the Spirit) precedes the creation, creator Christ is obviously first in order before Adam. It follows that Adam came first in the creation narrative before Eve, thus this husband (or man, aner) was created before his wife (or woman, gyne). This is only a quantitative significance Paul is highlighting. If Christ later became God, then there would be a qualitative significance to “God is the head of Christ.” Christ as the embodied pleroma of God was neither less than God nor subordinate to God, yet in functional order the Son followed and fulfilled what the Father initiated to love us downward (discussed in chap. 5, cf. Jn 6:38-39; Acts 13:32-33). These functional aspects must be understood in their whole context, or they become fragmentary and thus used to support reducing persons and relationships both within the whole of God and in the church.

           The quantitative significance of this chronological-functional order has been misinterpreted by a different lens than Paul’s and misused apart from his intended purpose by concerns for the sake of self-autonomy, self-determination, and even self-justification efforts—which have reduced human ontology and function and fragment relationships together. Paul expands on the quantitative significance with application to prayer and whether the head should have a covering or not (11:4-7). The quantitative significance of head coverings during prayer is connected by Paul to the chronological-functional order in creation. While such practice is actually secondary (11:16), Paul uses it to illustrate an underlying issue. Apparently, for a man to cover his head implied his independence from the creative order, and was to void or deny that Christ is the head, who created man in the image and glory of God (11:7). For a woman to be uncovered implies her independence from the creative order, implying her self-determination, of which in Paul’s view she needed to be purified (11:6; cf. Lev 14:8) because she was created from the qualitative substance of the first human person in the same image and glory of God (11:7). Her glory cannot be reduced to being “the glory of man” but is nothing less and no substitutes of the man’s glory, that is, in the same image and glory of God. This differentiation of glory is critical for understanding the basis used for defining gender ontology and, more likely, for determining gender function in reductionism or wholeness. Yet, it would also be helpful for women to have for themselves a clear basis (exousia) for distinguishing their whole ontology and function to fully understand their position and purpose in the created order (as angels needed, 11:10), which then would compose their place in the new relational order.

           A further differentiation is also critical to Paul’s relational discourse. The glory of God tended to be referentialized for a more quantitative focus in Hebrew Scripture and quantitative significance for Israel. The focus and significance of God’s glory deepened to its full qualitative and relational depth in the vulnerably revealed face of Christ (2 Cor 4:6). This qualitative and relational depth is the glory Paul experienced from Christ and the full significance of glory he alludes to. It is this glory in Paul’s completeness theology that is basic to whole ontology and function, both of God and of human persons. Yet, its qualitative relational significance is fragmented or lost with the referentialization of the embodied Word.

           When Paul restates the chronological order of human creation (11:8) and its functional order (11:9; cf. Gen 2:18), he is shifting from its outer-in quantitative significance to point to the inner-out qualitative significance of creation: the primacy of whole relationship together (in contrast, “to be apart” as in creation narrative above) constituted by the whole human ontology and function created in the image and likeness of God (11:11-12; cf. Gen 1:26-27; 2:25). In this shift, Paul also engages the dynamic of redemptive reconciliation to converge with the creation narrative. The other quantitative matters are secondary, even if they appear the natural condition (physis, 11:14-15); therefore, they should not define and determine human ontology and function, both for women and men (11:16). To use secondary matters as the basis is to reduce all persons’ ontology and function, and thereby to go beyond what is written by substituting outer-in practices of ontological simulation and epistemological illusion from reductionism—that is, ontology and function shaped from outer in by human terms, not God’s qualitative relational terms from inner out. The relational consequence is to diminish the primacy of relationships, minimalize their function, and fragment relationships together, all of which can only be restored in the process of redemptive reconciliation to the transformed relationships together of the new creation (cf. 2 Cor 5:16-18).

           This is the ontological and functional condition Paul addressed and the purpose  of his relational discourse with the church at Corinth to fight integrally against their reductionism and for God’s relational whole—which Paul addressed conclusively in the remainder of his letter (11:17ff), notably with the summary declaration: “for God is a God not of fragmentation but of wholeness” (14:33). When Paul adds to this declaration further relational discourse for women, somewhat parenthetically, his only concern is for this wholeness of human and church ontology and function (14:34-35). Paul is not seeking the conformity of women to a behavioral code of silence but rather their congruity to the whole ontology and function in the image and glory of God. Therefore, what Paul does not give permission to for women in the church is for them to define their persons by what they do (“to speak”) and have (knowledge, position or status) because this would reduce their ontology and function, thereby diminishing the church’s ontology and function. Certainly, this applies to men equally, whom Paul has been addressing throughout this letter. In other words, his prescriptions for women are the same for men, both of whom must not allow secondary matter (including gender distinctions) to reduce their ontology and function.

 

           How persons define themselves is a major issue basic to how persons engage in relationships, and on this basis how these persons in these relationships then constitute church—the three inescapable issues for those in Christ. The whole of Paul and the whole in his theology challenge the assumptions and theological basis persons have in these three crucial issues. In his family communication with Timothy, Paul extends his relational discourse for women to provide further clarity to this process to wholeness.

 

 

1 Timothy 2:8-15

           As discussed above, the letters to Timothy and Titus have been perceived to depict a less intense, more domesticated Paul, with a more generalized focus of faith and an emphasis on the virtue of “godliness” (eusebeia, piety toward God, 1 Tim 2:2; 3:16; 4:7,8; 6:3,5,6,11; 2 Tim 3:5; Ti 1:1; cf. 1 Tim 5:4). This milder image and emphasis not found in his undisputed letters are part of the basis for disputing Paul’s authorship of these letters. His relational discourse for women, I contend, helps “restore” the intensity of Paul in his integral fight, not for having a mere faith and mere virtue, but for wholeness and against reductionism.

           In his loving encouragement of Timothy to engage in this fight (1 Tim 1:18), he reminds Timothy that the primary purpose and outcome (telos) of his proclamation (parangelia) for the church is not purity of doctrine and conformity of belief but is only relational: persons in whole ontology from inner out who are agape-relationally involved by the vulnerable relational response of trust (1:3-5). Paul’s intensity of meaning should not be confused with quantitative density, thereby not understanding the quality of Paul’s intensity in the absence of any quantitative density in his words. The faith and love focused on by Paul (v.5) were first Paul’s experiential truth of vulnerable relationship face to face with Christ (1:12-14). Paul’s intensity of meaning is critical for his readers to embrace in order to understand where Paul is coming from. On the basis of his “relational faith and experiential truth” (2:7), Paul’s whole function establishes the context of his communication with Timothy and his relational discourse for women.

           Paul’s deep desire and concern for persons are for their whole ontology and function and for their whole relationships together. This outcome can emerge only with these persons transformed from inner out, thus redeemed from life and practice, both individually and collectively as church, that are defined and determined from outer in. He pursues them intensely with family love for their congruence with this wholeness.

           Paul begins this section with the practice of worship, with the focus first on men (2:8). Based on where Paul is coming from, his deep desire is for men to move beyond any negativity they have from situations and circumstances—not letting that define and determine them (cf. Eph 4:26-27)—and to openly participate in worship, not merely observing or being detached (cf. abad, work from the creation narrative, also rendered as worship to highlight this relational work). Yet, participation was not about being more demonstrative by lifting up their hands outwardly. “Holy hands” signified an inner out action of personal involvement, not as an end in itself but lifted up in relational response to God. This personal relational involvement with God was Paul’s deep desire for men to engage further and experience deeper, because the only alternative is a reductionist practice even if the hands were lifted. Paul’s focus for men is the focus by which his similar desires for women need to be seen.

           Paul’s concern for women’s practice in worship may initially appear to be a reverse emphasis than for men, less visible and more in the background as observers (2:9-10). Paul’s focus, however, went deeper than outward appearance and further than the common church practice of “good works.” This involved the first critical issue in all practice about the integrity of the person presented to others, which is directly integrated with how that person defines herself. In other words, Paul’s concern is about women who focus on the outer in to define themselves by what they have and do. Defined on this basis, women depend on drawing attention to their appearance and other outer-in aspects of themselves.

           The issue for Paul was not about dressing modestly and decently, with appropriateness. Again, Paul was not seeking the conformity of women to a behavioral code. While modesty is not the issue, highlighting one’s self to draw attention to what one has and does is only part of the issue. When Paul added “suitable” or “with propriety” (NIV) to the matter of dress and later added “modesty,” “propriety” (NIV) to the matter of teaching and authority over men (2:15), the same term used for these, sophrosyne, is more clearly rendered “sound mindset.” That is, Paul was qualifying these matters by pointing to the necessary interpretive lens (phroneo) to distinguish reductionist practice from wholeness—the new interpretive framework (phronema) and lens (phroneo) from the dynamic of redemption and baptism into Christ (Rom 8:5-6). The underlying issue for Paul, therefore, is whole human ontology and function, or the only alternative of reduced human ontology and function. Paul’s initial focus on men clearly indicates that this issue equally applies to men.

           How a person defines one’s self interacts with the presentation of self, which further extends in interaction with how the person engages relationships. The person’s interpretive framework with its lens is critical to this process. Paul’s alternative to outer-in function for women is “good works” (2:10), yet this can be perceived still as being defined by what a woman does. With Paul’s lens, however, good works must always be defined by and determined from the primary relational work of relational involvement with God from inner out—the ongoing vulnerable relational response of trust in relationship together. This is also the lens and focus of the process of learning for women. Paul appears to constrain and conform women to keeping quiet (hesychia) as objects in the learning process. Rather, hesychia signifies ceasing from one’s human effort—specifically engaged in defining one’s self and notably to fill oneself with more referential knowledge to further define one’s self with what one has (cf. 1 Cor 8:1; Gen 3:6)—and, with Paul’s lens, to submit one’s person from inner out for vulnerable involvement in the relational epistemic process with God (further qualifying 1 Cor 14:35). Certainly, this learning process equally applies to men (cf. 1 Cor 2:13; Gal 1:11-12).

           His next words to Timothy about women also appear incongruent with God’s relational whole created in relational likeness to the whole of God: “no women to teach or to have authority” (1 Tim 2:12). Yet the lens and focus of the relational epistemic process continued to apply in Paul’s directive for women. Information and knowledge about God gained from a conventional epistemic process from outer in do not have the depth of significance to teach in the church, that is, teach to the level of God’s relational whole on the basis of God’s qualitative relational terms. Such referential information and knowledge may have functional significance to define those human persons by what they have but have no relational significance to God and qualitative significance for God’s family. The term for authority (authenteo) denotes one acting by her own authority or power, which in this context is based on the human effort to define one’s self further by the possession of more information and knowledge, even if about God—the same reductionism that emerged from the primordial garden (Gen 3:6). Therefore, Paul will not allow such women of reduced ontology and function to assume leadership in God’s family. Moreover, he would not advocate for Christian freedom for women to be the means for their self-autonomy and self-determination, because the consequence, at best, would be some form of ontological simulation and epistemological illusion, that is, only reduced ontology and function. He turns to the creation narrative to support this position (2:13-14).

           By repeating the chronological order of creation, Paul was not ascribing functional significance to man to establish male priority in the created order. Paul was affirming the whole significance of the human person created in the image and glory of God, just as he affirmed in his previous directive to women (1 Cor 11:7). Yet, Paul appears to define their function differently by blaming Eve for the dysfunction in the primordial garden, as if Adam did not engage in it also and was an innocent bystander. yWhat Paul highlights was not Eve’s person but the effort of Eve’s self-autonomy to gain more knowledge for self-determination, perhaps even self-justification—human effort based on outer-in terms in reduced ontology and function—which she certainly engaged first, followed by the willful engagement of Adam (cf. Gen 3:2-7). Paul uses the chronological order in the creation narrative to magnify, on the one hand, the qualitative and relational significance of the human person’s ontology and function and, on the other, the functional and relational consequences of engagement in the sin of reductionism with reduced ontology and function.

           At this point Paul converges the creation narrative with the dynamic of redemptive reconciliation and integrates them into the relational outcome of baptism into Christ (1 Tim 2:15). In Paul’s full soteriology, sozo (saved) is conjointly deliverance and being made whole. Curiously, Paul declares that women “will be saved through childbearing,” which appears to be a human effort at self-determination and justification, limited to certain women. With Paul’s lens, he highlights an aspect from the creation narrative, whose quantitative significance is only a secondary function in God’s whole plan (cf. Gen 1:28), to magnify the qualitative significance of the primary function of whole relationship together, both with God and with persons in the image and likeness of God (cf. 2:18)—which childbearing certainly supports in function but does not displace as the primary function. Therefore, with Paul’s convergence and in his completeness theology, women will be saved from any reduced ontology and function and saved to wholeness and whole relationship together. That is, women are sozo while they engage in secondary functions—as identified initially in the creative narrative by childbearing, but not limited solely to this secondary function—based not on the extent of their fulfilling secondary functions but entirely on ongoing involvement in the relational contingency (“if they continue in,” Gk active voice, subjunctive mood) of what is primary: the vulnerable relational response of trust (“faith”) and the vulnerable relational involvement with others in family love (“agape”) only on God’s qualitative relational terms from inner out (“holiness”) with a sound mindset (“sophrosyne”), the new phronema-framework and phroneo-lens from the dynamic of baptism into Christ and redemptive reconciliation. Women’s ontology and function pivot on this contingency. Any shift from this primacy to secondary functions reduces their ontology and function, even in childbearing, or without it for single women.

           The faith in Paul’s relational contingency is not the generalized faith of what the church has and proclaims but the specific function only of reciprocal relationship. The vulnerable relational response of trust signifies the ongoing primary relational work that constitutes the “good works” of Paul’s alternative to outer-in function for women, and from which all secondary functions need to emerge to be whole from inner out. Moreover, the agape in Paul’s relational contingency is also reflexively contingent on faith. To be agape-relationally involved with others must be integrated with and emerge from the vulnerable relational response of trust; without this, agape becomes a more self-oriented effort at sacrifice, focused on what that person does—for example, about others’ needs, situations or circumstances—without the relational significance of opening one’s person to other persons and focusing on involvement with them in relationship. Paul was decisive that any works without the primacy of relational work are not the outworking of the whole person created in “the image and glory of God” (1 Cor 11:7), therefore cannot be defined as “good works” in relational terms.

           Of course, everything that Paul has directed to women is also necessarily directed to men in Paul’s completeness theology, except perhaps for childbearing. Paul sees both of them beyond their situations and circumstances and defines them as persons from inner out. Yet, I wonder if an ‘unexpected difference’ has emerged in the church, which no one has, or perhaps wants to, seriously address. Whole ontology and function for persons of both genders are defined and determined only as transformed persons from inner out relationally involved in transformed relationships together, both intimate and equalized—the relational outcome ‘already’ in Paul’s transformed ecclesiology, which Jesus intrusively embodied with ‘relationship together involving the whole person’ to compose his new relational order. This relational outcome of the experiential truth of the gospel has been problematic in church history as far back as Peter (cf. the churches in Rev 2:2-4; 3:1-2, 15-17), and which continues to grieve the Spirit. What Jesus embodied intrusively underlies, I affirm, the basis for Mary (Martha’s sister) still not being central to the preaching of the gospel and its relational outcome in the church, as Jesus clearly distinguished for their experiential truth (Mk 14:9; Mt 26:13). Just as Paul challenged Philemon to reconstruct the church as equalizer of slaves in the new relational order, churches today are challenged to be reconstructed as equalizer of women, along with equalizing others bearing distinctions of ‘less’ and even ‘more’—the challenge to equalize in order to gain brothers and sisters in new family together. While the situations and circumstances in the church have certainly varied, the underlying issue of reductionism (and its shaping of relationships) in church ontology and function has remained the common problem—which may be pointing to an emerging solution needing our attention.

           Since Paul was focused on fragmentation in churches, I doubt if he had any initial awareness of this ‘unexpected difference’ in his early experience with churches. But if the difference between Jesus’ relationships with women compared with men during his earthly life has any further significance for the church, it supports what I present without apology: Women who are emerging in whole ontology and function are the relational key for the whole function of this relational outcome of wholeness ‘already’ and the persons most likely to be vulnerable from inner out in order to lead other persons in this qualitative relational process to wholeness in church ontology and function. Qualitative sensitivity and relational awareness are integral for the church and indispensable for church leadership, and until demonstrated otherwise, women have certainly assumed the lead in this qualitative relational process. This is a compelling reality that churches need to embrace in their theology and practice.

           The Creator made no inner out distinction between male and female, as Adam and Eve experienced in whole relationship together (Gen 2:25), in contrast to their experience in reduced ontology and function (Gen 3:7). The extent of a person’s engagement in reductionism is the key. In Paul’s completeness theology, the righteous are not those who simply possess faith—a common theological notion. The righteous are those in ongoing congruence with their whole ontology and function in relationship with God, whom God can count on to be those persons in their vulnerable relational response of trust. Whom God can count on to be vulnerable in relationship with their whole person is the question at issue. Which persons will step forward to be accountable with God and to act from inner out on the challenge in transformed relationships together, irreplaceably both intimate and equalized, as the new creation church family is the question before us all. No human distinctions in Paul’s lens have any qualitative significance for persons baptized into Christ (Gal 3:27-29), only the primary relational work of trust making persons vulnerable to be agape-relationally involved with others in and for God’s new creation family ‘already’ composed in and composing the new relational order (Gal 5:6; 6:15)—nothing less and no substitutes.

           Along with acknowledging an ‘unexpected difference’ emerging in the church, there is an even more important acknowledgement that needs to happen both in the church and academy. This involves the understanding that the referentialization of the embodied Word provides a hermeneutical basis to narrow down, disembody, derelationalize and thereby blunt the relational intrusiveness of Jesus embodying vulnerably ‘relationship together involving the whole person’. This then conveniently establishes a rationale, intentionally or unintentionally, for retreating from engaging the Word—not only in his intrusive relational path but also his improbable theological trajectory—and his church family in whole relationship together vulnerably equalized and intimate—without the veil and the distinctions based on what we do (no matter how valued by churches) and have (no matter how esteemed by the academy). All this needs to be deconstructed so that transformation and reconstruction to wholeness in the new relational order can not only emerge but also grow and mature.

 

            The church embodied as equalizer from inner out is the embodied church alive in wholeness. The church in wholeness is the relational outcome only of redemptive change with the Spirit, and this relational outcome is claimed ‘already’. Redemptive change distinguishes the church from reduced ontology and function in a renegotiated ecclesiology. Redemptive change also signifies that the church is different from all that prevails around it or pervades its surrounding context, whether culturally, socially, economically or politically. Therefore, on the basis of its clarity and depth, the church embodies intrusively with Jesus the gospel of transformation to whole relationship together in his new relational order. This is the relational outcome that emerges from the ek-eis dynamic of Jesus’ family prayer, engaging the process of reciprocating contextualization with triangulation. Extended with and by Paul, the dynamics of his completeness theology compose the integral relational basis and ongoing relational base for the church to emerge ‘already’ in transformed ecclesiology as the whole of God’s relational whole with the relationships together necessary to fulfill the prevailing inherent human relational need and to solve the pervading human relational problem—that is, if the church is distinguished in function as the equalizer, composed in and composing the new relational order.

 

 

 

Composed In and Composing Holy Communion

            The vulnerable presence and intimate involvement of the whole of God have intruded on human life in general and our lives in particular in order to dwell together in the church as God’s new creation family (as Paul made conclusive, Eph 2:14-22). The new wine table fellowship of God’s family is a communion composed by transformed relationships without both distinctions and the veil, in the midst which the whole of God dwells together in reciprocal relationship composing the new relational order. This relational outcome ‘already’ reconstructs the church with the integral relational involvement of holy communion in whole relational terms—uncommon relationship together distinguished from all other gatherings.

            The contrast and conflict of the church in whole relationship together necessarily emerge when its communion ‘already’ is distinguished from the human shaping of relationships together. When we are developing our relationships in church contrary to shaping apart from the whole, and thus to be distinguished from relationships in general in the surrounding context, we need to engage a relational process distinguished from the surrounding context’s relational order and process. That is, church relations need to engage the relational process of redemption and reconciliation imperative for these relationships to be the transformed relationships integrated together to be God’s whole family, and which integrally compose the new wine communion. To participate in and have an equalized share in new life together as family in likeness only of the Trinity is likewise the holy communion that—by its nature constituted by Jesus and the Spirit and extended into Paul—is the relational outcome only from the equalization of redemption and the intimacy of reconciliation in family love. For persons to partake of the whole of Jesus’ life and to participate in his church in the relationships together of God’s whole involves the reciprocal relational response of nothing less and no substitutes—the only response compatible and congruent with his relational response of grace, as Peter experienced in his footwashing. The primacy of this holy communion is the intrusive ‘relationship together involving the whole person’ without defining distinctions and the barrier of the veil—the relational terms defining the only complete basis for how God engages in relationships and therefore for what God seeks from us in relationship together (Jn 4:23-24).

            Accordingly and nonnegotiably, the church as equalizer cannot be relationally involved with the human diversity in the surrounding contexts of the world without first absorbing the valid human differences within its own family life—not conforming in a homogeneous unit—by ongoing involvement in transformed relationships (equalized and intimate) together. To extend God’s response of family love to the human relational condition, church function must be whole to make whole. Churches lack wholeness to fulfill its purpose as equalizer as long as its own members remain functionally apart in some aspect of this relational condition—even if unintentional or inadvertent. The equalizing of redemption and the intimacy of reconciliation are intentional relational practices for his church, and on the basis of this qualitative relational process his church dissolves false human distinctions and absorbs legitimate human differences to be the whole of his family in the new relational order.

            Yet, the church as equalizer cannot be narrowed down to what to do in the life of the church and developing more ministries for church growth and missions, as made evident by the churches in Jesus’ post-ascension discourse for ecclesiology to be whole. This distinguished communion only involves the primacy of relationships and how to be involved in relationship together by family love. In his function as equalizer, Jesus’ working priorities were not about goals to fulfill in a divine mission because his whole purpose was a function of relationship: its origin, its initiation, its enactment, its fulfillment, its outcome and conclusion. The embodied church who integrally follows Jesus as equalizer has purpose only in relationship and always functions involved in his primacy of relationships: for their condition “to be apart,” their redemption, their healing, their reconciliation, their restoration and transformation. To “listen to my Son” and to be “just as the Father sent me” is to be on the same theological trajectory and intrusive relational path.

            Just as Jesus made redemptive change the relational imperative for the churches in his post-ascension discourse, the function of church as equalizer requires such change for churches today; otherwise, we will emulate their reductionist practices. While this may not require the theological reform undergone by the church council at Jerusalem, it does indeed call for the functional shift the early church undertook in church practice to transform their relationships together and reconstruct their relational order. This functional shift involves our approach to church life, church growth and missions. The trinitarian relational context of family and relational process of family love establish the working priorities necessary to build the relationships for his church to be whole as family in likeness—not of any type of family or any form of community, including those of the first-century Mediterranean world, though there was secondary association to its patrilineal kinship group.[3] His church as family is in likeness only of the Trinity functioning as family. The functional integrity of the trinitarian relational context and process cannot be diminished or minimalized in any aspect of church practice—most notably starting with its gathering at Holy Communion—in order for relationships together to have the ongoing relational outcome to be whole in church life and to live whole in church growth, and on this qualitative relational basis to make whole in church mission. Anything less and any substitutes are irreconcilable to his church as family and incompatible for his church family as equalizer; these alternatives are just rendered by a variation of the human shaping of relationships together.

            The defining call and commission to wholeness for his followers—since each of them has been equalized to be God’s new creation family together—compose his qualitative relational terms for function in the new relational order as equalizer. “Just as” (kathos) the Son received from the Father, his inseparable call and commission integrally embody the qualitative relational significance of his church to be whole in transformed relationships together in likeness of the Trinity—made definitive in Jesus’ formative prayer for his family (Jn 17:18-23). The experiential truth of the whole of Jesus’ call, commission and relationship was extended into Paul to embody the kingdom’s whole of God’s whole into the church’s whole ontology and function for the relationally (not referentially) distinguished significance of his gospel of transformation to make whole the human relational condition.

            The new creation church as equalizer by its distinguished nature both vulnerably and intrusively embodies his good news for whole relationship together with the working assumptions of both redemption and reconciliation (Gal 4:4-5). Therefore, its ontology and function integrally embody the complete Christology of the whole of Jesus and the full soteriology of his salvific relational work—the completeness theology and hermeneutic of this gospel that Paul embodied in whole for the church. The whole of who, what and how Jesus embodied, and the whole of whom he saves, what he saves them to and how he saves them, this is the whole of God’s whole that the church as equalizer embodies in its holy communion in the innermost. The distinguished practice of this holy communion in whole relational terms fulfills Jesus’ formative prayer for his family—with the whole of God, within its relationship together, and for the world to believe as the experiential truth in relational terms and to know as the experiential reality only in the relational outcome of wholeness ‘already’.

            The already is ‘already’ and the not yet is ‘not yet’. These two converge by the Spirit with the church’s relational progression following the embodied whole of God in his improbable theological trajectory and intrusive relational path. In this ongoing relational process, the human shaping of relationships together waits for the experiential reality of the good news of whole relationship together to be alive in the church ‘already’, just as “the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the new family of God” (Rom 8:19).

            Therefore, without ambiguity or compromise, “embody whatever makes you relationally significant to proclaim whole-ly the gospel of wholeness” (Eph 6:15).

 


 


[1] Reported by Steven Borowiec, “South Korea churches challenged in film,” Los Angeles Times, Calendar, December 3, 2014.

[2] For a summary of this discussion, see Arland J. Hultgren, “The Pastoral Epistles” in James D.G. Dunn, ed., The Cambridge Companion to St. Paul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 141-155.

[3] Joseph H. Hellerman describes this as a correlation in The Ancient Church as Family (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001).

 

 

 

 

 

 

©2015 T. Dave Matsuo

      back to top    home