4X12

Home    l     Protest Study     l     Human Condition Study   l   Jesus' Feelings Study     l   Issues Study    l    Diversity Study    Political Theology Study    

l    Study on Music-like Theology     l     Bible Hermeneutics Study    l    Gender Equation Study    l   Justice Study    l    Whole-ly Disciples Study    l    Trinity Study    

l   Global Church Study     l   Transformation Study    l   Theological Anthropology Study   l   Theology Study    l   Integration Study  l   Paul Study    l   Christology Study  

l   Wholeness Study    l   Essay on Wholeness    l   Spirituality Study    l    Essay on Spirituality    l    Discipleship Study     l    Uncommon Worship Study    l    Worship Study

l   Worship Language Study    l   Theology of Worship    l    Worship Perspective   l   Worship Songs    l    About Us    l    Support Services/Resources

l   DISCiple Explained     l    Contact Us

 

 Inescapable Issues Accountable in All Christians

 Integral Theology and Practice for Viable Faith in Everyday Life

 

 Chapter 1

ISSUE 1:   Understanding the Surrounding
Context, Culture & Infrastructure

Sections

 

What Surrounds You?

Getting into What Surrounds Us

     Humans in Context

Contextualized by and in Culture

     Human Progress Evolving

Contextualization’s Infrastructure

     The Culture of Contextualized Christians

The Critical Cultural Shift

     Jesus Engaging Culture

     Jesus’ Integral Approach

The Culture of Our Theology and Practice

Accountable for Our Will

Introduction

Chap.1

Chap.2

Chap.3

Chap.4

Chap.5

Chap.6

Chap.7

Chap.8

Printable pdf 

(Entire study)

Table of Contents

 

Scripture Index

 

Bibliography

  

God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness;

and let them rightfully rule over the life upon the earth.”

Genesis 1:26

 

Now the adversary was more crafty than any other thing the Lord God had made.

He said to the woman, “Did God say,

‘You shall not eat from any tree in the garden.’?”

Genesis 3:1

 

 

 

            Living in the world today is more complex than ever in human history; yet not because it is more complicated but due to the expanding dynamics and competing sources that make understanding what surrounds us difficult. The cosmos is expanding, as the most recent views from the James Webb space telescope make evident. Whatever questions raised and left unanswered by these discoveries may deepen the mystery of life. But it also makes more urgent the need for our understanding of human life in the earthly context.

            The macroscopic view that the Webb telescope points to and highlights also implies a reflexive microscopic view of its observation point and contextual source. Not limited to the scientific community, this context includes the general public, which will be revealed in a reverse view of the surroundings that make evident constraining forces. Like my wife and me, I’m sure many others are amazed at these space images. Yet, the complex reality of today also must include those who perceive these images as fake—just as some previously considered the moon landing fake—perhaps even seen as part of a conspiracy theory exposing efforts by science to take control over human life. These speculations may not seem baseless, given the competing sources of misinformation and disinformation pervading our contexts today. This is part of the expanding dynamics—for example, as the pervasive internet prevails among us—that we need to grasp in order to understand what surrounds us in the breadth and depth of their complexity.

            On the other hand, this complexity is not complicated. Rather in the factual truth of life, our understanding can be facilitated when our examination is enhanced by a strategic awareness of the bigger picture to bring us to the heart of the issue. This awareness of the bigger picture has been a critical challenge for human life from the very beginning. And Christians most of all are accountable to know not only the bigger picture but God’s big picture, which strategically and tactically frames all of life in its essential perspective. Therefore, paying attention and taking heed is not an abstract exercise but vulnerably addressing the existential reality of everyday life.

 

 

What Surrounds You?

 

 

            To expand our awareness, let’s slow down and contemplate the road we’re on. Now personally consider: How far-reaching is your surrounding context? That is, how influential is that context(s) (1) to your inner circle of family and friends, then (2) to your extended circle of church members, acquaintances and community contacts; and lastly, (3) to the peripheral boundaries that form your local context or region? And besides your culture of origin, what other cultures (including from the internet) are displayed in your daily life; and how have those cultures influenced your thinking and behavior? In addition, as these narratives (not abstractions) emerge, have you ever considered any infrastructures undergirding them and what will result in the future of any narrative?

            In the macroscopic breadth and microscopic depth of what surrounds us, our understanding will always be incomplete and languish until we also directly question “Where is your God?” (as in Ps 42:3). In this narrative of being tested personally in his surrounding context, the psalmist laments having this question raised to him; and other contexts have confronted God’s people with this basic question (see Ps 79:10; 115:2; Joel 2:17; Mic 7:10). Christians also wonder where God is in various situations and circumstances. Yet, when they/we really understand what surround us, then the question flips its focus from God to them/us: who or what is your God? Since God has already vulnerably revealed the whole of God (not God’s totality), God’s ongoing relational presence has already answered “where is God?” thus, only we can answer the question focused on “your God”. In other words, the question really facing us in our surrounding contexts centers on who or what existentially is or becomes our God in those contexts. Again, this is not an abstract matter for us to examine, though we may discover that the who or what of our God is a virtual reality. This, then, opens our understanding to the adaptations we make to what surrounds us—adapting to be fit or be part of “the fittest.”

            Christian adaptations can be a subtle process to understand, mainly because such adaptations are legitimated by the various cultures surrounding us. Political or social cultures, for example, are intentionally and inadvertently embraced by Christians as a means of validation, even if that culture is a competing source with God’s big picture and the Word’s way of life. This makes culture inescapable for all Christians; and a culture’s influence on our lives is unavoidable without our awareness, as well as will prevail without our understanding. Jesus’ first disciples lacked this awareness and understanding in spite of Jesus distinguishing the infrastructure of God’s big picture for them (e.g. Mt 24). The influence of their surrounding culture prevailed in their discipleship, thus notably they competed to be the greatest among them (Mk 9:33-34; Lk 9:46; Mt 18:1). How have Christians evolved since then to adapt in how we follow Jesus?

            It is vital to understand where what surrounds us is leading, and thereby anticipate what outcomes the future will bring. Of course, any prophetic input from the Holy Spirit to supplement the Word is always welcome in this examination. Given the Word at hand, let’s expand this examination without making assumptions for the Spirit and vulnerably depend on his presence and his leading us in the truth (as Jesus predicted, Jn 16:12-13). Perhaps, if so desired, the examination can also be facilitated by the use of strategic concepts from game theory.[1]

            A key concept in game theory is called “background induction”: looking ahead to the potential outcomes that may arise in the future (the so-called game tree) and then working backward to determine what the optimal actions are for the participants involved to take today. (That future, however, will always have roots in the past, which must not be overlooked or ignored.) Consider: What could you imagine the future outcomes of partisan politics in the U.S. will be? Christians at all levels have to acknowledge where they stand on the issue and define what actions they need to take today and develop tomorrow. Based on such actions or inaction, what does God hold us accountable for, and what would be God’s basis for that?

            Knowing and understanding our best role in any issue necessitates getting to the heart of what surrounds us. This involves an awareness of the surrounding influences exerted on us, which then challenges us to understand if, regarding an existing surrounding condition, we are explicit or implicit enablers, tacitly in complicity, or overtly in some counteractive position. And understanding this engagement in this stepwise contextual process does not and will not get to the heart of the matter without integrating it into the irreducible context of God’s big picture as distinguished by the Word’s relational terms. Therefore, regardless of the issue, Christians need to look ahead to anticipate outcomes in the future and reflect backward on what actions are best to take today that God holds us accountable for—a distinct integrated step-wise process without negotiation or compromise. The implications this has, for example, for partisan politics should be transforming for our practice, if not deconstructing some of our theology.

            The next step takes us to another important lesson to learn from game theory: Beliefs play a critical role in determining how participants will act. How Christians act on a surrounding condition will reveal what they believe in and thus value for their everyday function, not for their ideal religious beliefs. Such action or inaction will also expose to others the extent or nature of what Christians believe and their operating values, which will inform others of what to expect from Christians. In partisan politics currently, for example, are we promoting Christian nationalism, or are we silent on issues, or voicing counter positions? Moreover, in current extreme climate conditions, what do Christians believe about climate change, and how does that determine how we address it? Do we believe that God’s essential directive at creation (Gen 1:26) is negotiable?

            Our actual beliefs and their operating values play a critical role in determining all of this, which Christians must by necessity (not by obligation) understand and be accountable for their working beliefs and values—accountable inescapably for those from God and from what surrounds us. Our witness (intentional or inadvertent) is defined and/or determined by what unfolds in our daily life, including online.

 

 

Getting into What Surrounds Us

 

 

            Up to now we have only touched on the heart of what surround us. Now we have to deepen our examination to get into its heart, so that we can have the opportunity to address, affect and change life issues—assuming, of course, we will exercise our will (individual and collective) to make such decisions.

            With the recent and still unfolding discoveries, the known horizon of the cosmos keeps expanding—perhaps raising human speculation about reaching the horizon of God. Even though these horizons surround us, Christians (including as scientists) must understand the defining reality that eludes our common understanding. The horizons of the human context and God’s context are mutually exclusive, with one exception: if One penetrates into the horizon of the other unilaterally, thereby entering into the other context on the basis of One’s own terms. This reality illuminates both God’s context and the human context, both of which need to be further known and better understood, and which will require going beyond and deeper than current scientific explorations. The human context needs to know its limits and constraints. In the scientific approach of its context, there is apparent basis to acknowledge its limits and constraints. Scientists, however, shaped by their human context don’t often function either by the limits and constraints intrinsic to science, or with awareness of their human context biasing their overall human function, general thinking, and specific interpretations as scientists.[2] In other words, while scientists probe the universe for new horizons, they also need to probe more deeply into the personal horizon of their immediate surrounding context in order to know what underlies their function not merely as scientists but as humans.

            Likewise, even more urgently, Christians need to examine their own horizon to know and understand their surrounding context’s shaping influence on their function, general thinking, and specific interpretations as Christians—and also not assume that the horizon of God’s context has converged with theirs.

            The narrative of human life has been composed with variations of fact and/or fiction, ongoingly revised with optimism or pessimism, rendering plausible or implausible our prospects in life. Whatever narrative is embraced has far-reaching implications for all human life and immediate consequences for everyday life. Human life, in every narrative, comes with a human order, which inescapably defines the identity of those persons in that order, and which inevitably determines their function. The outcome can be good news or bad news, but the outcome is unavoidable for those occupying that human order of life. This outcome for Christians has also biased the news used to compose their gospel. Given such influence, this raises the critical issue and vital question:

 

What is the specific (not ideal) human order under which you live life; and are you aware of the reality of this order defining your identity, and do you understand the reality of how it determines your function?

 

            Your experiences and knowledge of others may not have informed you yet. But whether we as Christians face it or not, the realities of the world shape the reality of our everyday life. How and when we react to or act on this reality will depend on the underlying basis that defines who and what we are and that determines how we are. Therefore, recognized or not, realities of the world challenge the reality of our life, and without an integral basis these realities will shape that reality and control the outcome of our everyday life.

            We have to examine our background more deeply in order to understand how it has formed life as we experience today. Hopefully then, we will also understand how human life has been deformed, fragmenting who, what and how persons are. Throughout human history the defining order of human life has been perceived in various ways. In simple summary:

 

In the past and the present, or for the future, human order has been conceived by human theories, the practice of which at their core have not proven either to have deep significance for human life or to fulfill an order that meets the needs (not necessarily the desires) essential for human life.

 

What must be learned from what amounts to human experiments cannot elude our understanding:

 

What is essential for human life does not emerge from a theory, whatever its human source, but can be understood only from a full knowledge of human life. Any theories based on a limited knowledge (its epistemic field) cannot and do not grasp what is essential for the primary dimensions of life. Without this whole understanding, human theories can only make assumptions (plausible or not) about human orders; and, where applied, such theories can only construct incomplete, insignificant or false human orders, the formation of which reduce human life to a fragmentary human condition needing at its heart to be made whole.

 

            What is the human condition that humans (including all Christians) are contextualized in, thus necessitating Christians to penetrate into this condition’s heart of what surrounds us? This requires understanding the past to get to its roots.

            The human order has evolved through human history and has certainly devolved in historic moments. If we search for our roots in this evolutionary process, we have to include these historic moments. Christians, for the most part, would use creation as the starting point for the human order. Yet, how well this starting point serves as the root of how we currently enact the human order, as well as forms the branches of our identity and function in everyday life, is an underlying issue. What we subscribe to in our theology does not ensure that it also becomes our practice. Intervening variables always disrupt the direct correlation between theology and practice. Thus, in order to know our roots and its branches, Christians need to examine what has evolved in the human order since creation, and then see if any evolved and devolved roots have supplanted the roots of creation. This includes examining evolved roots among God’s people and in the church, which could test how vulnerable we are willing to be and let the facts speak for themselves.

            When we have some understanding of this, we will better know if current branches in our way of life correlate to creation or to its evolution. To make these connections correlative and not on mere assumption, we need to understand who and what were created and how they have evolved. This may require keeping an open theological mind and setting aside biases from our practice, whereby we will wait upon the Word to enhance our understanding of these roots and branches.

            Most Christians seem to believe in creation and not in evolution. Yet, the creation narrative (Gen 1-2) is incomplete in its details, so this is an insufficient basis to define our science. That is, in what has been revealed unequivocally about God’s creation, there are unknown aspects that leave room for evolution to fill in, either unequivocally or equivocally. For example, DNA of the human species can be traced back to Neanderthals and apes. However, though this evolution of Homo sapiens may account for their physical development, this quantitative account does not form the qualitative development of the human person. Quantified terms are insufficient to explain the human person, much less understand the person unique to all life that incorporates the person’s qualitative depth from inner out.

            Within the cosmological parameters of creation, God created the human person as the centerpiece. In order to understand the roots of this unique person, we have to know not only who God created but also what God created. The human person’s beginning was created in God’s image and likeness (Gen 1:26-27; 5:1-2). God’s image becomes ambiguous in human perception when considered in quantitative terms (Isa 40:18; Acts 17:28-29). Here again, evolutionary roots cannot be confused for creation roots, which would conflate the human context with what constitutes God’s context. God’s image is rooted in God’s ontology, whose being is constituted qualitatively (“God is spirit,” Jn 4:24)—although God’s qualitative function includes quantitative acts but cannot be reduced to those secondary limits. The what of the human person, therefore, is created in the qualitative image of God, first and foremost, which is rooted in the heart of the person distinguished from inner out at the innermost. Thus, as constituted according to God’s qualitative ontology and function, any quantitative terms describe the person just from outer in, using distinctions that are always secondary to the person’s primary identity and function rooted in God’s qualitative image—distinguished only in the innermost.

            On the essential basis of God’s qualitative image, the human person emerged in the beginning as the centerpiece of God’s creation when, and only when, in ongoing function by the heart. The function of the qualitative heart is critical for the whole person and holding together the person in the innermost, which creation makes irreducible and nonnegotiable. The biblical proverbs speak of the heart in the following terms:

 

identified as “the wellspring” (starting point, tosa’ot) of the ongoing function of the human person (Prov 4:23); using the analogy to a mirror, the heart also functions as what gives definition to the person (Prov 27:19); and, when not reduced or fragmented (“at peace,” i.e. wholeness), as giving life to “the body” (basar, referring to the outer aspect of the person, Prov 14:30, NIV), which describes the heart’s integrating function for the whole person (inner and outer together).

 

Without the function of the heart, the whole person from inner out created by God is reduced to function from outer in, distant or separated from the heart. In other words, the qualitative heart is the foundational root for the human person in the qualitative image of God. On this qualitative basis alone the human person emerged as the highlight of God’s creation. Evolution has not and cannot raise this person up from its limited roots and branches.

            Yet, this focal point of creation appeared to be incomplete. The who was certainly there, but the what seemed still to be missing something. When God said “It is not good that the person should be alone” (Gen 2:18), did the Creator forget that something and thus created another person to be his partner? It is commonly thought that two initial responses are what clarify and correct what God unfolds in creation. First, the other person was of female gender, the who of whom appears to be an add-on to help the male person and keep him company—notably as “a helper to be his partner” is commonly interpreted, thus making her subordinate in the human order of creation. Evolution could also explain such human development. Second, the what of each person appears to be highlighted as partners in marriage to form the pinnacle of creation, while still in the same human order. Both of these responses are prominent for composing Christian thinking and way of life. But they both in reality reduce the who and the what of God’s created persons, as well as compromise the integrity of their persons in the image and likeness of God. Thus, it is critical to understand our responses to creation in order to make the distinction necessary to know the person’s basic roots of who and what God created.

 

 

Humans in Context

 

            In John Donne’s classic words “No man is an island,” he pointed to the reality of humanity that humans are interconnected. Even though persons may be alone or feel alone, they are interconnected. That is to say, the related reality is that persons could in fact be “alone in a crowd” or a group, a tribe, a family, and even in a church. This raises the questions: How are persons interconnected, and then, what is the significance of their interconnection?

            The integral design of humanity originally did not evolve but was created by God. In the original design, persons are not “to be alone” but in relationship together at the depth of their whole person from inner out, and thus deeper than the association of any type of relationship (Gen 2:18,25). Thus, the created human context was constituted by whole persons interconnected in integral relationships together from inner out in the image and likeness of Creator God’s wholeness (Gen 1:26-27); and anything less and any substitutes rendered them “to be apart,” not just “to be alone,” that is, “to be apart from God’s wholeness.” The human context, however, did evolve when persons shifted from their integral design in order to reshape their identity and function, the consequence of which contextualized humans from outer in at the expense of their wholeness from inner out. The reality for the human context since this evolution is that reductionism contextualizes all humans in all human contexts with anything less and any substitutes. This real (not virtual) reality is inescapable, even to “an island.” So, then, what does this tell us about our surrounding context? And what significance does that context have for our identity and function?

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

            What is primary in human life has undergone fundamental changes; and the primacy now determining what’s primary often differs from one surrounding context to another, which involves but goes deeper than merely cultural diversity. What is primary for defining our identity and determining our daily function is the primacy given to the main surrounding context prevailing in our person and life together. The subtle or implicit primary used for this outcome is often not understood unless the determining primacy shaping this process is known. Contextualized humans don’t evolve from a mere concept or from merely a theory abstracted from concepts. The determining primacy we give our context shapes the primary used by all contextualized humans for their identity and function, evolving from the ways that particular context works out the life and practice within it and the significance given to those ways and working values.

            This evolving narrative goes beyond merely a system of beliefs and values; even though such a system may have influence, that influence tends to be virtual by promoting ideals, which alone would be insufficient to contextualize humans. What in fact contextualizes humans, and often irresistibly so in key ways, is a specific culture of that surrounding context, which forms an infrastructure for everyday life. Therefore, this culture composes the determining primacy we need to know, and signifies the primary determinant we need to understand, in order to assess the extent of influence our surrounding contexts could be having on our identity and function, and thereby on how we see what we see in the Word for our theology and practice.

 

 

Contextualized by and in Culture

 

 

            In everyday life, culture is not something we think about; we just assume it or take it for granted, if we even know it’s there. Culture is present in every human context,

however culture is defined and whatever shape a human context takes. Culture also has a particular identity, and, depending on your definition of culture, culture promotes an identity for the participants (active or passive) in that context, either by belonging to it or by association. When culture generates the identity of its participants, this becomes an ongoing issue of identity formation and maintenance (discussed in Chap 2)—particularly as contexts intersect, which is the norm in human life and practice as well as the reality for Christians.

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

 

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

 

At its earliest stages of development, culture emerges from the life and practice of those persons gathered together, thus culture is defined and determined by them either formally or informally. As that culture is established, its shape remains consistent or firm, with ongoing minor modifications. In the subsequent process of its life and practice, culture essentially takes on a functional “life” of its own to shape its participants with its infrastructure; that is to say, those persons become defined by their culture, and thus how they function is also determined by their culture. To be contrary is to go against the norms of culture, or, in other words, be counter-cultural, which for some groups is intentional whereby they evolve by adapting with their own culture in order to survive notably in counter-culturalism.

            Moreover, since we all participate in some type of collective group, we are all part of a particular culture that defines our person and determines how we function—relatively speaking, of course. To this extent we are never free of culture and always apply our culture to our activities, even in biblical interpretation to form our theology and guide our practice, for example, in following Jesus and practicing church. Therefore, as the main determinant in our everyday lives, culture works overtly or covertly to encompass how we see what we see, how we do what we do, thus basically has primary say over how we live what we live. The consequence of all this is:

 

Culture is the contextualizing agent in that context, and intentionally or unintentionally we are contextualized by and in that culture, knowingly or not—an infrastructure whose pervasive influence commonly eludes our consciousness.

 

 

 

 Human Progress Evolving

 

            The issue of human progress has not lacked controversy. What has been most contentious rightly questions, challenges and confronts what is considered progress. This needs to be a basic issue in the socioeconomic-political dimensions of our theology that directly involves the public way of life of any person and all peoples. To know our roots we have to understand how they evolved in the framework of human progress, whose subtle workings have altered the growth of human life with dubious branches.

            The issue of human progress emerged in the beginning with human persons and evolved from their public engagement in the primordial garden. After the historic creation of the human person, what unravels in the primordial garden is history (Gen 3:1-10). Some consider this narrative as allegory rather than historical; yet, either account simply elucidates the reality that has entrenched human life at its core. This reality must be neither oversimplified nor minimized, in order to understand both how this reality evolved and how public theology needs to address it in the everyday way of life of all persons, peoples, tribes and nations.

            First, what is this reality and how did it evolve from the beginning? In this discussion, you will be able to learn if you’ve oversimplified or minimized this reality in your way of life—learn, that is, if you suspend your biases and become vulnerable.

            The initial persons stepped forward in the primordial garden according to the created way of life constituted in wholeness, which was demonstrated in how they each defined their person from inner out and functioned in relationship together on this primary basis (Gen 2:25). Along this definitive way created by God, they were then encouraged to make human progress by taking a byway. Encouragement to progress sounds good and can look good, but this so-called good is the subtle workings of the source of this encouragement. The source of this reality is usually oversimplified in Christian theology and often minimized in Christian practice. That’s why the integrity of theology must ongoingly account consciously for the ongoing presence of Satan and his ongoing involvement in subtle counter-workings against God’s wholeness. His subtlety emerges notably by cultivating human desires for progress with attractive byways that in reality fragment wholeness.

            The existential reality of Satan’s counter-measures revolves around the condition “to be apart” (Gen 2:17), which counters (1) how the whole person is defined from inner out and (2) how persons together are determined by the primacy of their integral qualitative-relational function. This person and their relationships together (both with God and with each other) start to evolve when Satan raises a seemingly innocent question: “Did God say to you…?” (Gen 3:1). What appears as an innocent request for information must always be understood in Satan’s counter-relational workings. At the most basic level of relationship, Satan addresses the communication taking place from God and seeks to confuse the relationship with God with alternate interpretations that misinform the recipient of the original message (3:4-5). Alternative interpretations of God’s messages (communicated in relational language) should not be oversimplified, nor should resulting misinformation be minimized, because they both have relational consequences (“to be apart”) in the quality of life together created by God. Satan’s purpose, of course, always works to counter God by reducing the quality and fragmenting that wholeness—again, by the quantity of human progress available on the byways that embellish human identity and function.

            After Satan’s alternate interpretation of God’s message, the human persons embraced that misinformation to pursue their human progress with the expectation that their identity and function would be enhanced—perhaps beyond what their persons ever dreamed. The human brain was also at work here and being rewired accordingly—for example, to recondition the perceptual lens and its priorities—to supplant the primacy of the whole person’s heart in qualitative-relational function. What was happening in Eve’s brain when she “saw that the tree was good for progress and that it was a delight to the eyes” (Gen 3:6)? And how did her thinking supersede her heart when “the tree was to be desired to make one wise”—all likewise affirmed by Adam? Moreover, what made them think that their identity and function would progress to the presumed level that “your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil,” disinformation contrary to the relational communication of God’s message in clear relational terms composed for their wholeness?

            As these whole persons made the critical shift from person-consciousness to self-consciousness, their brains were certainly rewired to reduce their perceptual lens from the depths of inner out to the narrow limits and constraints of outer in: “Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked” (3:7). Contrary to and in conflict with their whole persons without shame from inner out (Gen 2:25), the so-called progress they expected in reality reduced their identity and function to the fragmented human condition resulting from sin as reductionism.

            Sin from the beginning must not be oversimplified or minimized merely to disobedience of God’s message. When sin is limited as such, then the reality that has evolved from the beginning is not understood much less addressed. Without knowing the roots of sin, the subtle counter-workings of Satan are not adequately perceived by the lens used by our brains. That, of course, allows branches of reductionism to evolve and devolve in human life, which take root in our everyday identity and function to prevail (subtly or not) in our public way of life. Certainly then, the lack of knowing and understanding these roots and branches encompassing sin as reductionism makes us susceptible in our persons and relationships to inescapably reflect, unavoidably reinforce, and inevitably sustain the fragmentary human relational condition “to be apart from God’s wholeness.” In this pervading and prevailing process, our human condition becomes reduced of its integral qualitative-relational function in wholeness created in the image and likeness of the Trinity.

            From the beginning, God asks the human person “Where are you?” (Gen 3:9), in order for persons to face up to the evolution of their created identity and function in the sin of reductionism. We can either react to God and hide behind masks shielding the person from inner out (as demonstrated by the initial persons, 3:8-13); or we can remove our veils and respond to God to be both redeemed from reductionism and transformed to wholeness in God’s likeness (as in 2 Cor 3:16-18). Yet, to be vulnerable to account for how we have evolved (personally and collectively) requires the willingness to take responsibility for any and all evolved roots and branches that are contrary to and in conflict with our created roots and branches. To answer “Where are you?” therefore, will encompass much further understanding to know where we really are. And underlying all of this throughout our theology and practice is the view (basically strong or weak) of sin that we have, and thus use in our way of life. Nothing less and no substitutes for sin as reductionism emerged from the beginning. Nevertheless, anything less and any substitutes for this fundamental root have weakened this view of sin, and thus have rendered many branches with the contextualized appearance of “good and not evil” when in reality they are rooted in reductionism.

            As the author of reductionism, Satan’s only purpose and goal is both to reduce the whole of God (Father, Son, Spirit in the primacy of whole relationship together)—for example, as the Son experienced progressively in Satan’s temptations (Lk 4:1-13)—and to fragment God’s created wholeness. Therefore, “Where are you?” exposes the root of the condition and gets to the heart of what’s evolved. When Christians lose awareness of the reductionism that surrounds us and operates in us, our consciousness readily falls into a fog, asleep to the counter-relational workings of Satan. This makes our human condition susceptible, for example, to the influences of culture, whereby, just like the early disciples, we engage in its comparative dynamics sustained by self-consciousness. This said, of course, how these narratives are composed is always based on the free will with which all humans were invested at creation. And God always wants to know “What are you doing here?”

 

 

Contextualization’s Infrastructure

 

 

            Understanding the influence of what surrounds us is not optional for Christians, because such influence can be a shaping determinant for our everyday life—even for the church. We become contextualized by this influence; and most notably pervasive in this conscripting process is some cultural infrastructure.

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

            From this micro level let’s zoom out to the macro level to observe the growing systemic context of globalization. The rising tide of globalization is transforming modern societies, which has raised speculation about the sovereignty and autonomy of modern states.[3] Globalization is having a pivotal impact both economically (positive and negative) and politically (responsive or reactionary); and its expanding efforts in general[4] and for U.S. politico-economic policy more specifically[5] need to be recognized and understood. Whether we are aware of it or not, and no matter what we think about it, we all are being contextualized into globalization—contextualized by and in this fragmentary global culture. Despite any good intentions of human achievement for the purpose of so-called human progress, the engulfing reality of global culture is that it is not whole and thus will not contextualize humans in wholeness—just as observed in the efforts to build the tower of Babel (Gen 11:1-9). Having said that, globalization itself (like technology) is not the culprit here but its culture formed by those propagating it with an infrastructure apparently beyond the limited control of national and regional constituents.

            Whether at the macro level or the micro level, and the spectrum in-between, the culture contextualizing humans in those contexts is neither neutral nor inconsequential. Therefore, as the definitive determinant for human identity and function, culture needs to be understood, addressed, and changed accordingly in order for contextualized humans (notably as Christians) not to live in reduced human identity and by reduced human function—so that whole ontology and function can emerge for humans to flourish, not progress.

            Christians need to take to heart the definitive paradigm made axiomatic by Jesus (Mk 4:24), and tune in carefully to the culture in their surrounding context: The measure of culture you use will be the perceptual-interpretive mindset you get for the identity and function for both your person and others. Whether we zoom out or zoom in, the common measure of culture has contextualized humans in a reduced measure of anthropology in general, and in the specific reduced measures first and foremost of gender (as witnessed in the primordial garden),[6] then of race, ethnicity, class, age, and other human characteristics and distinctions. Consequently, this is not only a contextual issue but a systemic problem, both of which Christians need to address.

 

 

The Culture of Contextualized Christians

 

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

            Certainly, Christians have not been immune from being contextualized, and thus immune from having their perceptual-interpretive mindset shaped by the contextualizing culture. The explicit and subtle influence of a culture contextualizing Christians then shapes how we see what see, how we do what we do, how we live therefore what we live—which certainly has permeated how we learn what we learn and how we teach what we teach, thus how our education is what Christian education is. Indeed, the value infrastructure of culture is neither neutral nor inconsequential; and as Christians participate in their surrounding contexts, we must never assume that we have not been or are not being reduced existentially in our basic ontology and function by our contexts’ cultures.

            Likewise, therefore, the cultures of human contextualization cannot and should not be considered as vital parts of the diversity composing the common good integral to humanity. Yet, this misinformed and misguided perceptual-interpretive mindset of contextualization increasingly prevails in Christian thinking, theology and practice, and further pervades higher theological education and learning. For example, contextualization has become the present-day paradigm for missions and proclaiming the gospel, as if to say “the end justifies the use of any means.” Meanwhile in theological studies, there is a growing movement to incorporate diverse contextualized views of theology, as if to assume that all these parts will contribute and add up to the whole understanding (as in synesis, Lk 2:47, cf. Mk 8:17-18) necessary to know and understand God—not to mention as an antidote to Western theological hegemony. The results, however, have been composing merely hybrid theology and practice on a fragmentary basis, contrary to God’s whole basis in wholeness. Such results evolve from naïve acceptance or unexamined tolerance of the surrounding cultural context (as the church in Thyatira, Rev 2:18-20), which contextualizes Christians and their daily practice regardless of their theology.

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

            What then is the primary culture serving as the main determinant for your most visible identity in daily life that shapes how you practice what you practice?

 

 

The Critical Cultural Shift

 

 

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

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

            What Jesus ongoingly exposed by his intrusive engagement and consistently made imperative for all his followers is this: The critical need for the cultural shift that he embodied and enacted in order to incarnate being distinguished from that culture while in its context (cf. Jn 17:14-18). He thus summarized this critical cultural shift in his intersection with the surrounding context of Judaism and its prevailing culture contextualizing the identity of God’s people in reduced ontology and function:

 

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

 

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

 

Jesus Engaging Culture:[7]  

 

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

            To say that Jesus looked at culture theologically must not be separated from the function of his identity. His whole identity always functioned whole in the primacy of God’s culture as the only determinant. Accordingly, his function was also uncommon in the surrounding contexts, which signified the critical cultural shift from those cultures. Foremost, then, his theological lens extended from his whole and uncommon perceptual-interpretive mindset formed by God’s relational language and terms. Thus, theology for Jesus was not about doctrine, propositions of static truth, or systems of beliefs and values—just as the Word exposed in the church in Ephesus (Rev 2:2-4). Though his lens was certainly theologically orthodox (not in a gospel-speak, salvation-speak sense), it was always in conjoint function with orthopraxy—that is, his integrally whole and uncommon (whole-ly) life and practice—in the whole-ly God’s relational context and process for relationship together. Jesus functionally engaged culture not only in orthodoxy but with orthopraxy, with the latter at times appearing to contradict the former, which was an ongoing source of controversy in many of his interactions—notably in a so-called orthodox religious context since his practice was often perceived as counter-cultural.

            Yet, Jesus’ theological engagement of culture was not for the end result of orthodoxy, or even orthopraxy, but only for the outcome of relationship together and being whole. Accordingly, his engagement was always the relational language expression of communicative action enacting God’s thematic relational response to make whole the human condition (cf. Jn 12:46-47)—embodying the strategic trajectory of God’s big picture. In other words, he saw culture through the uncommon contextual lens of God’s perception and desires, and this primacy defined and determined his response. For Jesus, any other engagement with culture was secondary, which should neither define nor determine what is primary or its shaping primacy—as Jesus demonstrated at the wedding in Cana (Jn 2:1-11).

            The significance of all this for both our theology and practice is that Jesus integrally (1) embodied the whole-ly theological trajectory of God vulnerably into the human context, and (2) enacted his uncommon relational path in surrounding contexts only on his whole basis in wholeness. What he embodied cannot be separated from what he enacted; and what he embodied and enacted are distinguished only by how he embodied and enacted his identity and function in surrounding contexts in order to be whole-ly incarnated. Thus, to truly know the embodied Word cannot be diminished or oversimplified to the Word’s teaching or example (cf. Jn 14:9).

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

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

            Any reduction in life and practice of the whole person and those persons’ relationships together needs to be made whole to fulfill who, what and how they are as God’s creation. Hence, the reduction of what defines human persons (e.g. in a comparative process to stratify human worth or value) needs to be redefined for persons to be made whole. Likewise, the reduction of human relationships from qualitative function and significance (e.g. by diminishing intimate relational involvement or promoting barriers to relational belonging) needs to be transformed for the relationships together necessary to be whole. These reductions are the operating values directly composed by the surrounding culture, and its primacy certainly then requires the critical cultural shift enacted by Jesus.

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

 

 

Jesus’ Integral Approach:

 

            Jesus’ engagement of culture for his purpose to be, live and make whole involved an irreducible relational process. Integrally, this whole relational process was specific to the uncommon relational context of his identity and ontology in the whole-ly God. The dynamic involvement of this integral relational process cannot be categorized by typologies of the relation of Jesus and culture. The classic typology of Richard Niebuhr, for example, is of initial interest, yet this is a static framework insufficient to account for Jesus’ intrusion on culture.[8] This includes variations or refinements of his typology.[9] The dynamic relational involvement of Jesus in the surrounding contexts of the world was an ongoing process of engaging culture both to be whole and to make whole, which also required being vulnerable with his person and intrusive in his relationships in order to make qualitative relational connection with those contextualized by culture.

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

 

  1. Compatibility, or congruence, “to be whole”—thus, there is no tension or conflict with the life and practice of a culture, and further relational involvement is for deeper development of the whole.
     

  2. Partial overlapping areas “to be whole”—some areas and/or practices in a culture are affirmed as part of God’s general revelation and common grace, and what is basic to humanity as God’s creation; thus this acceptance allows room for flexibility in some secondary differences to cultivate and nurture the whole, but other areas and practices are in tension or conflict “to be whole” and, nonnegotiably, still need to be redefined, transformed and made whole.
     

  3. Incompatibility “to be whole”—thus, there is conflict, not merely tension, with no room for flexibility in differences; the situation/condition is nonnegotiable and needs to be redeemed to be made whole.

 

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

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

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

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

            Jesus never assimilated into a surrounding context by and in its culture. He always accommodated his identity and function in that cultural context without compromise. Thereby, Jesus’ engagement of culture in the surrounding context was always in congruence with, and thus the definitive extension of, the whole-ly God’s thematic relational response to the human condition to make whole his creation. This is the irreducible and nonnegotiable function of the whole-ly God’s relational work of grace only for new covenant relationship together in love, which extends into his church family on his intrusive relational path. That is, this relational outcome will extend into a church that makes no assumptions about the culture of its surrounding context, and thus functions in relation to that culture by the three qualifying issues. When the conscious resolve of this ongoing relational process does not clearly distinguish the minority (uncommon) identity of church ontology and function, churches by default become co-opted by prevailing cultures and thereby seduced in their theology and practice to follow an incomplete (fragmentary, not whole) Jesus on a different path—the pivotal issue facing Peter at his footwashing and his post-resurrection interaction with Jesus about the language of love (Jn 21:15-21).

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

 

 

The Culture of Our Theology and Practice

 

 

            It is imperative that Christians discover their perceptual-interpretive culture, so they can understand the mindset used to identify who they are and also whose they are. The same perceptual-interpretive culture is the main determinant for their theology and practice, therefore we are challenged not to be shaped by its misinformation and its biases.

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

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

            At this time let’s limit our focus to the U.S. and consider the existing condition here of evangelicals. Evangelicalism is not a monolith around the world and certainly not in the U.S.[10] In the U.S., however, evangelicals form a curious, unique, unpredictable (take your pick) diversity, which not surprisingly maintains incompatible divisions between them. Much to the chagrin of many evangelicals, the public perception of evangelicals lumps them together as one entity, if not always in theology certainly in practice. Yet, the incompatible divisions among evangelicals have less to do with their theology and more to do with their practice, both of which are influenced and shaped by culture in the surrounding contexts. Whether it is social, political, economic, or a combination of factors underpinning a surrounding culture, that culture has become a main determinant forming the perceptual-interpretive mindset of evangelicals. And its cultural infrastructure supplies a subtle means to achieve this end.

            For example, identity politics has been a key determinant for many evangelicals’ identity and function, notably among high-visibility leaders. Moreover, the partisan political values of culture have been the key for the increased intensity among various evangelical groups to promote nationalism, no matter the repercussions for other persons, peoples, tribes and nations.[11] Recent surveys indicate that a majority of evangelicals want the U.S. declared as a Christian nation. I don’t think the current “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) movement would have impetus, perhaps even survive, if evangelicals didn’t support its nationalism at the forefront.[12] In the midst of this divisive condition, there are certainly evangelical counter-activists, whose source of identity and function is more ambiguous; though they may have the appearance of counter-cultural, their action is not clearly distinguished as emerging from the critical cultural shift embodied and enacted by Jesus, thus rendering them to reactions from all sides. Then there are the many evangelicals who are simply silent, who may identify their theology and practice as evangelical but whose identity and function just mirror the silent majority composing the U.S.

            Whatever variation of evangelicals is highlighted, what is illuminated is the urgent need for all evangelicals to discover the perceptual-interpretive culture shaping their theology and practice, so that they can make the critical cultural shift to be true followers of the whole-ly Word, and not merely identified as ‘people of the Book’. Of course, this is assuming that they would make the choice to follow the Word on his terms in relational language as their primary priority.

            The subtle consequence of any and all perceptual-interpretive cultures in the surrounding context is to displace followers of Jesus to a different path than Jesus’ relational path—just like those on the road to Emmaus (cf. Mt 7:13). To be on a different wider path than Jesus’ narrow path has major consequences. In contrast to what Jesus embodied in his whole person and enacted in how he functioned whole-ly, persons are reshaped from inner out to outer in, and relationships are reconstructed accordingly with secondary matter to substitute for what is primary; and on this reduced basis, church practice also is established as well as extended in the academy. Moreover, most consequential to understand is how this wider path effectively reflects, reinforces and sustains the human condition, which is replicated in our condition.

            We cannot ignore the role culture plays in these consequences because its seductive influence is far-reaching on shaping our person, our relationships, and our churches and academy. Consider further, it is vital for us to examine church practice of worship and what determines its shape, including contemporary worship and music—as the popular church in Sardis had to be awakened to (Rev 3:1-2). How congruent is this worship with who and what the Father seeks in those worshipping him (Jn 4:23-24)? And how much does our worship correlate to what Jesus critiqued of worship on his whole basis in wholeness (Mt 15:8-9)? We cannot assume that the seductive influence of culture is not present, has not diminished our worship,[13] and has not co-opted us from the primary, the primacy of reciprocal relationship together without the veil, and indeed has not removed us from the intrusive relational path of Jesus. Such an assumption mirrors the assumption from the primordial garden based on the misinformation that “you will not surely be reduced.”

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

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

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

            Is the path we are on to follow Jesus narrowed down with the Word or has it widened with the perceptual-interpretive mindset of the surrounding culture?

 

 

 

Accountable for Our Will

 

 

            All Christians have volitional freedom, regardless of the limits and constraints of our contexts. Since we cannot expect others to make our decisions, we need to take full responsibility for how we exercise that freedom. Even not to choose is to make a choice, so it is always consequential (cf. Gal 5:13; 1 Pet 2:16)—consequences which should never be underestimated.

            At the beginning of creation, the human person was invested with the free will to “rightfully rule over the life on the earth” (Gen 1:26). Those persons initially chose to follow this relationally ordained rule but soon made a subtle contrary choice in for their so-called progress. The consequences have evolved ever since—notably in God’s people and in the church, whose history we must learn from or be susceptible to repeat it. If millennials and Gen Zers, for example, are truly looking for a more substantive Christian faith, their faith equation must also factor in the following: They will have to account for their volitional freedom—including all the choices they make on social media—and take responsibility for the consequences of their choices. No Christian is exempt from accountability, no matter how substantive or diluted their faith. “Who or what is our God?” is an open question needing an ongoing answer from all of us.

            Hence, with our volitional freedom amplified by the Word, if we don’t ongoingly make the conscious choice to be vulnerable in whatever life issues we address, we will never get to the heart of the human condition that prevails both surrounding us and within us. Our agency (individually and collectively) is always accountable in our daily life because God holds us accountable for our will. Until Christians exercise their will and apply their agency on the basis of the relational terms of the Word, the only basis for any hope and expectations is consequential. That is, the consequences will continue to impact all Christians at the heart of who we are and whose we are; and that always becomes defining for the who and what of our person and determining of the how our person functions in what surround us.

            Therefore, all Christians are confronted with the inescapable challenge to join together in a strategic intrusion into the human condition—unavoidably both surrounding us and within us. These are vulnerable actions integrated with the strategic trajectory of God’s big picture that penetrates to the heart of reductionism inherent in the human

condition. Thus, the irreducible and nonnegotiable purpose embodied in our persons (only from inner out) actively fights against any and all sin of reductionism in order to redeem, reconcile and transform all of life, starting with our own.

            Certainly and unequivocally, our challenge comes with the ubiquitous competing counter-workings of reductionism’s author—working subtly even in the church (2 Cor 11:14-15)—which will diminish, compromise or negate any intrusive action on the human condition. Accordingly, as our challenge widens, the path ahead by necessity narrows so that we follow Jesus and “be where I am” (Jn 12:26). What unfolds or evolves will be the witness that all Christians make evident in and to the world.

            “Did the Word say that?”  

 


 

[1] Used by economists Anastassia Fedyk and David McAdams and applied to the war in Ukraine. Los Angeles Times, OP-ED, July 24, 2022.

[2] Thomas S. Kuhn discussed the human bias shaping scientific theory in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970).

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

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

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

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

[7] I extend the discussion previously made on The Gospel of Transformation: Distinguishing the Discipleship and Ecclesiology Integral to Salvation (Transformation Study: 2015). Online at http://www.4X12.org.

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

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

[10] See Brian C. Stiller, Todd M. Johnson, Karen Stiller and Mark Hutchinson, eds., for the current state of Evangelicals Around the World: A Global Handbook for the 21st Century (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2015).

[11] Further discussion on this key issue is found in Bruce Ellis Benson and Peter Goodwin Heltzel, eds., Evangelicals and Empire: Christian Alternatives to the Political Status Quo (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2008).

[12] In an OP-ED, Randall Balmer recently pointed to an underlying bias of racism in white evangelicals’ political agenda, “Evangelicals show their true colors,” Los Angeles Times, August 23, 2017. See also his book Bad Faith: Race and the Rise of the Religious Right, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2021).

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

 

 

© 2022 T. Dave Matsuo

back to top    home