|
Chapter 6
The
Challenge of the Whole
"It is not good for [the church] to be apart" from the whole. Yet this
has been a tension and struggle for the church since its beginning. And
the issue then--as it remains for the church today--was reductionism as
churches shifted to reductionist substitutes and focused on secondary
matter to define itself and determine its practice: namely, circumcision
or uncircumcision instead of the new creation (Gal 6:15) and other outer
distinctions to stratify and fragment the whole of God's family (Gal
3:26-29).
As we continue to be subjected to the
relational tests of reductionism, the church must--by its nature, not
from obligation or compulsion--claim the whole of its life together as
family both with the Trinity and with each other. This claim of the
whole is not an option for the church but the ontological condition and
relational reality of the new creation in Christ, apart from which the
church is functionally rendered in practice to mere ontological
simulation and epistemological illusion.
In addition, as Paul said to the church
in the above context, this claim is what counts and matters most to God
(cf. Gal 5:6); and Paul's life and teachings reflecting the whole are
critical for our further understanding and practice of the whole of God.
Along with Jesus and the Spirit, Paul is central to the church's claim
and transition to the whole, and is thus integral to its discussion in
these next two chapters.
The Need for Redemptive Change
In its claim of the whole, church
practice needs to address how the person is defined and perceived in
actual function--not merely in theology and doctrinal beliefs about the
human person and the imago dei--as well as to confront the basis by which
relationships are ongoingly engaged. These two issues remain inseparable
from what is involved in church practice and usually are antecedent in
influencing how we do church. These will not be easy to address and
confront because invariably they will involve making changes--that is,
redemptive change: the process of being freed from the old and
being raised up in the new of the whole (cf. 2 Cor 3:16-18; 5:16-17).
Change always generated controversy
when it involved altering the word of God or the consensus of church
creedal tradition. Yet, often such controversy resulted in deepening our
understanding of God's Word and reforming practice from church
tradition, both of which further brought forth the whole of God. For
example, at the Jerusalem council the controversy stratifying the Jewish
believers from the Gentile converts resulted in their equalization in
the church as the emerging whole of God's family (Acts 15);
instrumental in bringing this redemptive change to the church was the
convincing testimony of Peter, whose reductionist theology about the
Gentiles had changed earlier (see Acts 10:9-11:17).
Another example of positive change
resulting from controversy involved forms of the Arian controversy in
the fourth century in which the whole of God was reduced, notably
denying the deity of Christ. The Cappadocian fathers responded by
formulating the initial doctrine of the Trinity and thus provided a
deeper understanding of the relational nature of the whole of God as the
social Trinity. Despite this crucial change in theology, the church--particularly in the West though not exempting the Eastern church--has
yet to grasp the relational significance of the Trinity for its
practice--which Jesus' high priestly formative prayer defines and
constitutes as the whole of God's family.
Positive changes in theology do not
guarantee corresponding changes in church practice--as further
demonstrated in the Reformation, though the magisterial Reformers
focused on soteriology over ecclesiology. Nor do deepening theological
developments (and correct doctrine) automatically bring redemptive
change, particularly in how we define the person and function in our
relationships. While Peter changed his theology and how he did his
ministry, how he actually functioned in his relationships was exposed by
Paul to still be the old way, thus lacking deeper redemptive change and
heart-level reconciliation (Gal 2:11-14). This suggests that vestiges of
reductionism remaining most resistant to change involve the substitutes
for the whole in how we define the person by what we do and have and how
we function in relationship without the primacy of intimate involvement.
This appears to be true even where there is a shift to postmodernity,
which, while rejecting modernist assumptions, remains under the
influence of reductionism.
Substitutes for the whole person and
for the relationships necessary to be whole tend to be the last areas to
change not only because they are the most threatening but also because
it is easy to confuse their forms of simulation and illusion for "the
real thing." This becomes especially problematic when our
perceptual-interpretive framework tends to equate quantitative forms for
qualitative substance (as in "masquerade," cf. 2 Cor 11:13-15) and
fails to distinguish whether there is any quality in the quantity (for
example, statistics of church growth). When we use such a framework to
prescribe and assess change, we are predisposed to reduce the whole of
God.
Interestingly, at the Jerusalem
council, Peter defined God as the one "who knows the heart" (kardiognostes,
searcher of hearts, Acts 15:8) yet did not account for this truth in his
own relationships. Furthermore, while the forms of behavior may be
impeccable, God assesses the involvement of our heart in that behavior
(Mt 15:8). As discussed in Chapter 1, the function of the heart
constitutes the whole person, so the whole is not engaged without heart
involvement. Measuring the distance we keep from our heart and the
extent of heart involvement in our relationships are inherent to the
qualitative framework of the whole of God because this is what matters
most to God, signifying who, what and how the triune God is.
Consequently, in its claim of the
whole the church needs to shift to the qualitative
perceptual-interpretive framework of the whole of God in order to fully
prescribe and assess the changes necessary to be whole, for example, in
spiritual formation and community formation and their underlying
identity formation. This necessitates the church distinguishing clearly
between the change of transformation (metamorphoo, the
fundamental inner-out change of the whole person, 2 Cor 3:18) from the
merely outward changes of form (metaschematizo, denotes only
outward change, which as a reductionist substitute can be mistaken for
the redemptive change of transformation, 2 Cor 11:13-15). The simulation
or illusion of so-called transformative--a current buzzword tending to
involve metaschematizo more than
metamorphoo--change functions in what we
do by taking on a role (hypokrisis, acting out a different
identity, which Paul exposed Peter doing, Gal 2:13) without the
qualitative significance of heart, thus in effect functioning (even
unintentionally) just as a "masquerade" (metaschematizo).
Without enforcing this vital
distinction of change, church practice is unable to account for
redemptive change in its midst. The Spirit engages only in the
relational work (top-down causation) of metamorphoo (2 Cor 3:18)
and constitutes the church only as God's family (Eph 2:21, 22; Rom
8:15, 16). If church practice is to be compatible in working
cooperatively with the Spirit in this relational process, it needs to
address and confront reductionist substitutes (and bottom-up causation)
and must undergo the redemptive changes necessary to be the whole of
God's family.
Three Vital Aspects of Practice
The two issues of how we define the
person and how we do relationships, and thus church, further involve
three vital aspects for all practice: (1) the presentation of our self
to others (the veracity of who is presented), (2) the content of
our communication (the qualitative substance of what is
communicated), and (3) the level of relationship we engage (the
qualitative extent of how we're involved). As we examine these
three aspects of practice along with the two issues involved in church
practice, we can better understand if how we do church is the relational
function of the whole of God or has shifted to a reductionist
substitute. This process includes examining the compatibility of church
practice with the relationship of God in by what and how
God does all relationships, discussed in the last chapter.
The relational significance of the
incarnation of the Word revealed the qualitative substance necessary to
express these vital aspects of practice in the likeness of the whole of
God. Jesus disclosed the nothing-less-and-no-substitutes whole of God.
By directly and openly sharing his whole person (the presentation of his
self), he communicated the very heart of God (the content of his
communication) and made himself vulnerable for intimate relationships
(the level of relationship engaged). In other words, Jesus engaged the
whole of other persons in the only way God does relationships: nothing
less than heart-to-heart involvement for intimate relationships--which
contradicts any aspect of practice "to be apart" and for which there is
no substitute.
If Jesus had not vulnerably disclosed
his person and intimately engaged his followers for relationship
together, we would not have the deeper ontological reality and
qualitative epistemological basis for truly knowing and experiencing the
whole of God constituted in the Trinity. We have to grasp this as a
function of relationship, not a function of doctrine or theology though
they are important as a basis for the relationship. This is not the
informed result of quantifying God's self-revelation but the relational
outcome of God's loving response to our condition "to be apart" from
the whole.
When the incarnation is perceived as
only a miraculous event or act, there is reductionism of God's loving
response. The act may still be described as loving but God's response
is perceived with less relational significance. When the incarnation is
perceived merely as the revelation of God to quantify in propositions
for theological foundationalism, there is reductionism of the whole of
the person Jesus presented and reductionism of the content of the whole
of God disclosed in the communication shared during his engagement of
his followers in intimate relationship. This challenges how we see God's revelation and thus what we do with God's self-disclosure in the
presentation of Jesus' person and in the content of his communication,
the qualitative substance of which is relationally significant and
specific only for intimate relationship together. God's revelation and
truth are only for this relationship.
When Jesus told the Father in his
formative prayer "I have revealed you to those" (Jn 17:6)--signifying
the completion of the relational work the Father gave him to do (17:4)--he defined for his followers the full meaning and purpose of the
incarnation and God's revelation. He used the term for "reveal" (phaneroo,
to make known, show openly) which is synonymous with another Greek term
apokalypto (to reveal, remove a lid), yet with an important
difference we need to embrace. While apokalypto points only to
the object revealed, phaneroo engages the relational process to
address those to whom the revelation is made. Certainly Jesus
apokalypto the whole of God and fully exegeted the Father (exegeomai,
Jn 1:18). Yet phaneroo completes the purpose for God's
self-disclosure in the incarnation of the Son as the relational process
only for the life eternal of intimately knowing the whole of God as
family constituted in the Trinity (Jn 17:2, 26). Simply stated, God's
revelation communicates relational messages from him to us for the
purpose of relationship together. As the hermeneutical and functional
keys, Jesus opens the door to the whole of God for relationship.
Moreover, Jesus challenged the
reductionism of his disciples just prior to his prayer in order for them
to grasp, that in being "the Way, the Truth and the Life" (Jn 14:6) his
life is about relationship together, his truth is only for this
relationship, his way is just to this relationship--nothing less and no
substitutes. We need to embrace and take to heart for our practice that
God only vulnerably presents the whole of his Self and communicates the
quality of his heart to be lovingly involved with us for the sole
purpose to engage our hearts in intimate relationship together as his
family, the whole of God. All church practice converges in these three
aspects of practice and becomes compatible in response to God's
phaneroo when not substituted for by reductionism.
The Practice of Disciples: To Follow or
to Serve
The church is ongoingly challenged not
to reduce the who, what, and how of God's revelation. As followers of
Jesus, the church tends to practice the same reductionism as his first
disciples by reducing Jesus' self-disclosure to his teachings and
ministry examples (namely as a servant), thus diminishing the whole of
his person. This reduces discipleship to following his teachings, not
his person, following his examples of servanthood, not personhood. This
defines Jesus as a teacher and not a whole person to be involved with,
defines him as a servant and not the Son to be involved with together as
family. This reduces discipleship merely to what we do for Christ rather
than being who and what we are in relationship with Christ, focusing on
how to serve rather than how to be involved in relationship.1 This
minimalist approach, even with the best of intentions, has relational
consequences for church practice.
When we reduce following the whole of
Jesus to only parts of him, no matter how sincere and rigorous we engage
in his service and mission we can expect the same relational consequence
as his first disciples: "Don't you know me" (Jn 14:9). The disciples
had yet to grasp that earlier Jesus clearly defined the paradigm for
serving that counters reductionist substitutes: "Whoever serves me
must follow me, and where I am, my servant will also be" (Jn 12:26).
Just as "follow me" were the fundamental first (Mk 1:17) and last words
(Jn 21:22) which Jesus told Peter, this imperative defines the process
of discipleship as totally a relational imperative. This paradigm
defines further the necessary condition to serve him. As previously
discussed, Jesus used the term for "serve" (diakoneo) that comes
from the word for minister, deacon, servant (diakonos). What is
vital for his followers to grasp is that diakoneo emphasizes the
work to be done, not the relationship between them. Note this important
distinction between the work and the relationship--a basic issue faced
by Adam and Eve in the primordial garden, discussed previously--that
deals with reductionism.
In the relational imperative and this
paradigm for serving, Jesus communicated directly to his followers that
in order to serve him it is not sufficient for us to focus "on the work
to be done," or on related situations and circumstances--that is,
reductionist parts--no matter how dedicated we are or how good our
intentions. Contrary to many notions of serving, even aspects of a
servant model, service is not what being a disciple is all about. While
service results from it, being a disciple does not mean service first
nor involve serving as the primary priority.
The first priority in this paradigm is
the relational priority of intimate involvement with Christ ("where I
am my servant also will be") because Jesus does not define his
followers by what they do (service or mission) but by their whole person
in intimate relationship together. The necessary condition to serve
Christ, and the most important priority regardless of urgent
circumstances, is to be fully involved with him in the ongoing deep
relational process of discipleship--that is, the intimate relationship
of being with him. Reductionism redefines a disciple merely by
the behavior of service or ministry without the deep significance of
this relationship, thus creating an epistemological illusion: outer
behavior is a sufficient condition for who is presented, what
is communicated and how one is involved. To be his disciples,
however, is only a function of this relationship and thus by its nature
necessitates being intimately involved not for service first but for the
relational involvement of love (cf. Jn 13:35). This relational
experience is the outcome of the ontological reality of this
relationship, which cannot be simulated nor experienced apart from
anything less than intimate relationship with the whole of God. This
relationship is the true vocation of his disciples which church practice
must be challenged to be involved in as his followers.
The primacy of intimate relationship
together is signified in the whole of God and constituted by the Trinity
as family. This is who, what and how Jesus, as the image of God,
vulnerably disclosed the whole of God to his followers and what he asked
the Father for his followers to experience together in the whole of God's family, which the Spirit is making a relational reality. Anything less
than the whole person (divine and human) and any substitutes for the
relationships necessary to be whole (in the Trinity and the church) are reductionism--a condition and practice in which
"it is not good for the
church to be apart" because anything else we present, communicate and
are involved in do not have relational significance to the whole of God,
as well as are incompatible with the relationship of God.
The Practice of Church: Family or
Orphanage
While a disciple is all about the
relational process of discipleship, discipleship is not all about a
disciple, nor even a gathering of individual disciples. The relational
process of following Jesus involves the relational progression which
leads to the redemptive act of adoption as the Father's very own
daughters and sons in his family together. The whole of this family is
the fulfillment of God's covenant promise which constitutes the gospel
and what Christ saved us to in the new creation--contradicting
the reductionist emphasis of good news for the individual merely in what
Christ saved us from.
Throughout this study God's response
to the human condition "to be apart" from the whole of God has been the
integrating thesis for God's involvement with humankind, thus the theme
for salvation history and the ultimate expectation for its
eschatological conclusion. In the process of this relational progression
as discussed earlier, after Jesus promised that his followers would not
be left as orphans (Jn 14:18) he prayed for his followers to experience
the relational reality of the whole of God's family as constituted in
the Trinity (Jn 17:6-26).
Given God's ongoing response, Jesus'
redemptive relational work and prayer and the relational purpose for the
Spirit's continual presence, each church is confronted with the
decision that functionally defines its existence. By its practice, each
church decides either to take up its relational responsibility as the
whole of God's family or to assume the function of a gathering of
orphans in effect as an orphanage. This either-or decision is directly
correlated to a church's perspective on and extent of practice in the
condition "to be apart." Whether a church gives functional priority to
this relational responsibility of family or subordinates it with other
church functions, there is no intermediate position for church practice
that functionally defines its existence. We either are engaging the
relational process of the whole of God or are apart from its relational function--no neutral practice, though certainly the relational process
is not always consistent in practice.
The metaphor of "church as an
orphanage" is descriptive of any gathering of Christ's followers who
remain in some condition "to be apart" as relational or emotional orphans--gathering even with good intentions or for a missional purpose.
An orphanage can provide organizational membership, group identity in
joint activities, and it may even simulate belonging in a limited sense
of community. Yet biological orphans would have no illusions that this
would substitute for belonging to an authentic family. The same
awareness cannot be said for most relational and emotional orphans in
the church.
Jesus defined the reciprocal relational
responsibility involved in relationship together without being apart as
orphans (Jn 15:3-11). As discussed in "The Church in the Likeness of
the Trinity," the key term used for this process is "remain" (meno,
abide, dwell) which is not a static descriptive term but a dynamic
relational term involving ongoing engagement in a relational process. It
is the same term Jesus used to define his disciples (Jn 8:31).
Furthermore, meno is used by Jesus to distinguish the function of
those in enslavement (or reductionism) from those who authentically live
as God's very own daughters and sons in his family as the relational
outcome of redemptive change, therefore defining the qualitative
significance of belonging (Jn 8:34, 35).
Belonging is a relational function of
the whole of God--not as an organization nor even in a limited sense of
community--as family constituted in and by the Trinity. While meno
has a quantitative dimension of duration (permanence), Jesus emphasizes
the qualitative aspect of the depth of relationship and involvement.
Therefore, belonging is the relational outcome of intimately
experiencing the relational reality of being God's very own together as
family. This experience may be simulated with good intentions or may be
perceived with illusions but authentic belonging cannot be substituted
for. Nor should church practice be accountable for anything less--just
as Jesus held accountable the churches of Ephesus (Rev 2:2-4), Sardis
(Rev 3:2), and Laodicea (Rev 3:15, 16).
What renders a church effectively an
orphanage are its reductionist practices of relationships without the
primacy of intimacy and its reductionist definition (perception) of the
person functioning apart (or distant) from the whole person signified by
the importance of the heart. Even though church as orphanage can be a
refuge for those who are apart--as orphanages historically have served
for those without family--this practice is still a reductionist
substitute for the relational responsibility as the whole of God's
family. God holds his people accountable for his created design and
purpose for relationships, to be his covenant people, to live in the new
creation of his family--that is, accountable to relationally respond
back to the whole of God as the Trinity, whose trinitarian persons are
intimately involved with us. Settling for anything less puts us in
tension or conflict with God's desires and with what matters most to
God.
Jesus was in ongoing conflict with the
main reductionists of his time--notably the scribes and Pharisees who
reduced religious practice to following a code and focused on fulfilling
the outer behavior (instead of relationships) deemed necessary for the
covenant, while acting out a role (note Jesus' polemic in the Sermon on
the Mount, Mt 5-7). The disciples in general and Peter in particular, as
discussed earlier, were in ongoing tension with Jesus because of their
tendency to have distance from their heart and to maintain relational
distance from the vulnerable heart of Jesus. Consequently, they did not
intimately know Jesus (and thus the Father) despite their membership as
his first disciples, and all their shared activities and time together.
When Jesus had warned them of "the yeast of the Pharisees" (Mt 16:5; Lk
12:1), he addressed their reductionism in some degree of practice "to
be apart." Later, of course, he directly confronted their reductionism
(Jn 14:1-9). As a group, the early disciples essentially functioned as
relational orphans serving in an orphanage during Jesus' earthly life.
It was not until after Christ's ascension that they decisively took up
their relational responsibility as the whole of God's family.
Certainly the arrival of the Spirit's
presence and work can explain the redemptive changes undergone by the
early disciples. Yet this does not eliminate the necessary reciprocal
relational work of Christ's followers in cooperative engagement with
the Spirit, for which the church is accountable in the trinitarian
relational context of family to practice, to nurture and to extend by
the trinitarian relational process of family love.
For authentic followers of Jesus, to
function as orphans together is a contradiction of being in relationship
with Christ and is not an option for practice in our relationships. Nor
is following Jesus in the relational progression as his new kinship
family optional. In his study of the N.T. house church Roger Gehring
observes that the image Jesus preferred for the new people of God was
the eschatological family of God. He concludes that this was most likely
because family of God best communicated the theological essence of what
Jesus was trying to impart.2 With further use of social history, Joseph Hellerman examines the social organization of the pre-Constantinian
house churches to find that from first-century Palestine to
third-century Carthage the church was a surrogate kinship family whose
members understood themselves to be the sons and daughters of God.3
We can add that the function of this
new kinship family (not necessarily in the form of a house church) is
the necessary practice of God's people everywhere and how to do church
anywhere regardless of its tradition, even in the twenty-first century
Western world. Christian community formation (past, present or future)
is more significant than a house, a household or even a conventional
family, as our study will discuss shortly. The church as family in
likeness of the Trinity is a new creation unlike any gathering
experienced before, even as covenant people of God. And as transformed
persons involved in transformed relationships with family love, the
practice of this new relational process raises issues for us which need
to be resolved both as individuals and as a church family.
When church practice accounts for this
reciprocal relational responsibility, as seen with the early disciples,
it becomes the apostolic church as the whole of God's family, not an
orphanage of those still functioning apart. No human person was more
instrumental in establishing the church as the whole of God's family
than the apostle Paul. We need to examine briefly Paul's account of the
church, yet more so in his practice as a disciple than in doctrine as a
theologian.
Paul and the Whole
The practice of God's Word was always
subject to reductionism in the early church, even its ministry. In
counteracting reductionism in the church at Corinth, Paul declared that
his ministry team did not "distort the word of God" (2 Cor 4:2); the
Greek term doloo means to adulterate, dilute, water down, cheapen
(e.g., as merchants used to do with wine). Contrary to what apparently
was a norm in that period, they also did not "peddle the word of God
for profit" (2 Cor 2:17). The term for "peddle" (kapeleuo) means
to merchandise it, treat it like a commodity and utilize it for one's
own ends. These reductions basically serve to popularize the Word and
make it more palatable for a prevailing perceptual framework--similar to
what we see in Western Christian culture and church practice today,
particularly in the U.S.
Yet Paul could ensure the integrity of
his interpretative framework and practice of the Word from reductionism
because of redemptive change in his life. Previously in his life, the
Word of God was merely a code-book to follow rigorously (cf. Phil
3:4-6). Then he encountered the Word revealed to him directly in a
relational experience (Acts 9:1-19; 22:3-16; 26:9-18). Jesus took Saul's persecution personally, not situationally. That is, he made it
relationally between Paul and him ("Saul, Saul, why do you persecute
me"); in doing so, he established with Paul the relational context and
process of the whole of God.
It was this experience that changed
Paul's understanding of the Word from a code-book to God's
self-disclosure "in the face of Christ" (2 Cor 4:6) to follow wholly
for relationship. This was more than a paradigm shift in perspective but
more significantly a transformation of Paul's person which defined his
theology. The revelation of God is for relationship, which is further
understood because Paul's life and theology increasingly demonstrated
the full functional resolve and relational outcome of God's response to
our condition "to be apart" by defining the whole of who was included
in God's family, what his family was all about and how this family
functioned. Jesus disclosed himself to Paul for this purpose, both for
him individually and for the corporate community of God's people (Acts
26:16-18).
It was from this direct relational
experience with the Word that Paul became a disciple, the terms of which
were still determined by the discipleship Jesus established during his
earthly life. Paul's following of Jesus may be disputed because of his
lack of quoting Christ in his epistles. This raises various questions:
was Paul only interested in the Christ event (his death and resurrection
plus his return) and not in his teachings, or did Paul lack knowledge of
his teachings; did his lack indicate he only saw Jesus as savior and not
as teacher in the rabbinic tradition, or indicate that he didn't really
follow Jesus as a disciple? I suggest Paul was a follower of Jesus in
the discipleship Jesus redefined for his disciples and the terms for
adherence to him as teacher, which contrasted with other disciples in
the rabbinic tradition as students.4 In contrast to a reductionist
substitute of merely following teachings, Paul followed the person
Jesus. Moreover, the God this person disclosed--"the glory of God in
the face of Christ" (2 Cor 4:6) who is the very image of God (4:4)--is
the whole of God as the Trinity. Paul followed Jesus in this relational
progression to the whole of God, so it is the Trinity, not Christ alone,
who claims the center of God's glory, the purpose for the church and
their eschatological work.
From the lens of this discipleship
framework, we need to understand Paul's conversion and calling. To
serve Jesus is to follow him and following him is a function only of
relationship with him, not of service for him (Jn 12:26). Nor can the
whole of Jesus' person be reduced merely to his teachings, which may
suggest in part why Paul rarely quoted Jesus nor referred directly to
his teachings very much. The priority of relationship is understood in
Paul's major focus to be "in Christ" (e.g., Rom 8:1; 1 Cor 1:30; 2 Cor
5:17; Gal 1:22;5:6; Eph 1:13) which is central to his theology not as a
code to follow as in his former life but as the whole person ("the
image of the invisible God," Col 1:15) to be involved with for
relationship together in a new life. The qualitative difference between
his former and new life is definitive in the relational significance of
Paul's desire "to know Christ" (Phil 3:4-10), coinciding with what
Jesus defined as eternal life (Jn 17:3). And as reflected in Paul's
prayers, knowing Christ is not about information but the relational
outcome of intimate relationship (Eph 1:17; 3:16-19). The priority and
primacy of intimate relationship was basic to Paul's life as a disciple
and defines his theology of the whole of God as family to which Jesus
called him (cf. Eph 4:12, 13). While his epistles lack quantitative
reference to Christ's teaching, Paul demonstrated the qualitative
significance of Christ and following him in the whole of God.
Paul's initial relational experience
with Jesus on the Damascus road was the defining moment both for his
life and theology, the thrust of which became conclusive for fully
determining how God responded to the human condition "to be apart" and
what Christ saved us to. To understand the connections involved here we
have to grasp the relational process of the whole of God.
While Paul's Damascus road encounter
with Jesus traditionally has been understood as a conversion experience,
a recent shift in interpretation would describe the same experience as
Paul's unique call to be apostle to the Gentiles.5 A call seems to fit
the narrative situation rather than a conversion. Yet a conversion was
necessary to fulfill the call, which Jesus obviously understood and
certainly was not overlooking in that encounter. If he did, this would
imply that serving was a priority over the relationship, in which the
relationship could be on Paul's terms. Ananias set the record straight
by essentially defining for Paul what was necessary to follow Jesus
(Acts 22:16). This included transformation ("wash your sins away,"
apolouo, which Paul clearly connects later to "sanctified@" and "justified" in 1 Cor 6:11) and relational involvement ("calling
on his name," epikaleio), plus taking on the new identity reflecting
these redemptive changes ("be baptized"). The latter was not merely a
new ritual to replace old practices but the substantive expression of
qualitative change (cf. Rom 10:10).
In other words, Paul was converted and
called. To focus on one at the expense of the other is a reductionist
attempt to categorize Paul's experience into a part separated from the
whole. Yet they are inseparable in the relational process involving the
whole of God's response not only for Paul's life but for all of God's
people. Furthermore, the call to discipleship is not optional to
conversion "in Christ" nor is functional participation in Christ's
body voluntary. Relationship with Christ determines both identity and
function. It was this relationship and the intimate experience of God in
it which transformed Paul and saved him to the whole of God's
covenant family. Paul's theology unfolds in the relational context and
process of the whole of the Trinity.
To understand Paul the theologian we
need to grasp the relational significance of Paul as a disciple. As
commonly experienced in conversions, the practice (religious and
cultural) of Paul's former life represented not only a point of tension
but direct conflict with his new life in Christ. All that was associated
with his former life (namely Judaism, Gal 1:14; Phil 3:4-6) factors into
the central theology Paul presents. Yet Paul was not merely substituting
a different belief system for Judaism. I suggest that what his former
life and Judaism represent is a variation of reductionism. In
counteracting the reductionism underlying the contextual issue of Judaism--as well as other variations, for example, in early forms of
Gnosticism--Paul formulated theology which is relationship-specific to
the whole of God and God's response to those who are apart from the
whole. Certainly Paul can speak on this matter from direct personal
experience. Even more important than his former life, therefore, is to
understand that what factors more deeply into his theology is the
relational significance of God's response and the whole of the new life
which Paul claims for his whole person and experiences in the
relationships necessary to be whole. We need to account for this in the
corpus of Pauline theology and thus in church practice as followers of
Christ.
The death and resurrection of Christ
were not about mere event for Paul but the absolute means
relationally necessary for the relational end to be "in Christ,"
thus Paul's dominant focus on what can be confused as event apart from
the whole of Christ. Likewise, Paul's view of the Law and justification
by grace are certainly in conflict with Judaism but even more so
counteract reductionism. Yet his theology was not designed to be divisive--though certainly formulated in a context of tension and
conflict--but reconciling, restoring to the whole of God. His teachings
focused on the tension and conflict with reductionism--just as Jesus did
throughout his earthly life--and the reductionist substitute of "parts"
determining the whole (bottom-up causation) in a process of
justification by works. Paul understood how this reductionist system was
based in prevailing incorrect or incomplete perceptions of the Law which
in reality prevented wholeness, because he was previously enslaved in
the system.
Analyzing the different aspects of
Paul's theology separately fails to help us understand his theological
resolve to operationalize the qualitative-interpretive framework which
embraces the whole person signified by the importance of the heart (Col
2:2, 3) and the necessary relationships of the whole of God as his new
covenant family (Eph 2:11-22). This was his calling (along with his
conversion) which was always in the context of his relational experience
with God (see also Acts 22:17-21; 23:11; cf. 2 Cor 12:1-4). His
theological resolve--and his passion seen, for example, in 2
Corinthians--emerged from his relational involvement as a disciple. His
theology then was not about rational proclamation (denoted by the Gk.
term lego) of propositional truths but about simply sharing (in
contrast to lego, denoted by the term laleo in Col 4:3)
the qualitative and relational significance of the whole of God found in
the mystery of Christ by making known relationally to others (denoted by
phaneroo, not apokalypto as discussed earlier, in Col 4:4,
rendered "proclaim clearly" in NIV) God's self-disclosure--just as God
revealed relationally to Paul.
Paul formulated his theology and
understood the whole of the gospel by piecing together the various
relational experiences of God's self-disclosure to him. God's
revelation is always for relationship in the integrating thesis of his
response to the human condition "to be apart," which Paul grasped as
God's thematic action since Abraham (Rom 4) yet was determined by God's desires even before creation (Eph 1:4, 5; Rom 8:29). Unlike Jesus'
early disciples who did not piece together his self-disclosures (as
discussed previously about syniemi in Mk 8:17) and thus really
did not know him (cf. Jn 14:9), Paul claims full comprehension (using
the related term synesis in Col 2:2) of the mystery of God (Eph
3:3). Despite what may appear to be self study (Gal 1:16, 17), this was
not the rational conclusion of a process of reason but the relational
outcome from the cooperative involvement of Paul's whole person
signified by his heart (Rom 10:10) with the relational work of the
Spirit (whose purpose is described by Paul in 1 Cor 2:10-13; Eph
1:17-19; 3:16-19). Connecting these texts yields the relational process
of the heart-to-heart involvement of intimacy constituted in the Trinity
and the basic nature of the whole of God's response to us.
From this experiential base of direct
revelation Paul proceeded to fulfill the purpose of the whole of God and
to provide theological coherence for church practice as the whole of
God's family. This purpose was outlined in Colossians 1:25-2:4 and was
always in conflict with reductionism of the word of God (doloo in
2 Cor 4:2). Whether it was Judaism or early forms of gnostic philosophy
on the reductionist side, Paul was entrusted with the responsibility ("commission" in Col 1:25 and
"administration" in Eph 3:2 rendering the
same term, oikonomia, which involves managing the affairs of a
household--the whole of God's family) for the whole of God's word: "to present . . . in its fullness" (one term, pleroo, meaning
fully or complete, i.e., without reduction, Col 1:25) the mystery of God
revealed to Paul (Col 1:26; Eph 3:3), which is all about God's response
to our condition "to be apart" from the whole and now "in Christ" can
be part of the whole of God's family (Col 1:27; Eph 3:6) and thus be
whole, complete (teleios rendered "perfect" in Col 1:29).
This is the gospel Paul struggled for
in conflict with reductionism (Col 1:29-2:1; Eph 3:7; Gal 2:5, 14; cf.
Rom 16:25, 26). This gospel is the gospel of the whole of God which Paul
boldly confronted Peter with as the only truth of the gospel. The
practice of anything less Paul identified as simply role-playing (hypokrisis,
Gal 2:11-14)C that is, essentially a reductionist substitute without
both the qualitative significance of heart and the relational
significance of the whole of God's family. Paul was entrusted with the
responsibility (oikonomia) for God's family and the integrity of
its whole. This was not a theological responsibility but a relational
responsibility. While Paul formulated critical theology about salvation,
justification, sanctification, pneumatology, eschatology, he was not
focused on the theological task but rather intensely engaged in the
family "business" of building God's family. With the various aspects
of his theology, Paul provided the theological coherence for church
practice as the whole of God's family to be operationalized in family
process, in what can be called "ecclesiology of the whole."
As a disciple, Paul's purpose then for
the followers of Christ was further summarized (in Col 2:2, 3): "that
they may be encouraged in heart [signifying the whole person] and united
in love [intimately involved together in the relationships of family
love necessary to be whole as constituted in the Trinity] so that they
may have the full riches of complete understanding [the qualitative
perceptual-interpretive framework of the whole for synesis,
making the connections to comprehend] in order that they may know [epignosis,
perceive and know specifically] the mystery of God, namely Christ [the
qualitative depth of God in the face of Christ] in whom are hidden all
the treasures of wisdom and knowledge [the qualitative whole of who,
what and how God is]."
Transitioning to the Whole
Moreover Paul defined how this
relational responsibility needs to be fulfilled (in Col 4:3, 4): "that
we may proclaim [laleo, simply speaking, sharing and not about
theological discourse and reason, lego] the mystery of Christ
[Christ's self-revelation is not about information to inform us of God
but for us to have intimate relationship with him to know God, which
cannot be sufficiently proclaimed merely by intellectual expression of
content from the mind but necessitates the qualitative significance of
the heart] . . . that I may proclaim it clearly [phaneroo,
discussed earlier, focuses on those to whom the revelation is made, thus
engaging a relational process] as I should [communicating, laleo,
by its nature, dei, as opposed to obligation or compulsion]."
That is, communicating (laleo) the whole of God is a relational
function (phaneroo and not merely apokalypto), therefore
must by its nature (dei) be compatible with how Jesus shared
relationally with us--vulnerably with his heart for intimate connection
(cf. Jn 17:26). Anything less or any substitutes are reductionism.
This indicates how Paul defined the
whole person with the qualitative significance of the heart and how he
practiced relationships in the primacy of intimacy. Both are necessary
in order to be compatible with how Jesus functioned and thus continue
the relational progression Jesus established for the church to function
"with Christ" as his followers and "in Christ" as the whole of his
family (cf. Eph 4:12, 13). What Paul presented of his self, shared in
his communication and engaged in relationally define further that by its
nature what Paul operationalized for church practice must involve the
relational context of family and the relational process of family love
as constituted in the Trinity. All of this involves the whole of God and
how God's response to our condition "to be apart" from his whole
coheres in the ecclesiology of the whole. This ecclesiology is the focus
of the next chapter.
____________________________________________
1. A full theology of discipleship is
discussed in my study The Relational Progression: A Relational
Theology of Discipleship.
2. Roger W. Gehring, House Church
and Mission: The Importance of Household Structure in Early Christianity
(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004), 47.
3. Joseph H. Hellerman, The Ancient
Church as Family (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001).
4. For a deeper discussion on how Jesus
defined discipleship see my study The Relational Progression.
5. For a summary of this discussion see
Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, Daniel G. Reid, ed. Dictionary
of Paul and His Letters (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993),
156-163.
back to top
Wholeness Study Intro
home |
