|
Chapter 7
Ecclesiology of the Whole
Central in Christ's teachings is the
kingdom of God (cf. Mt 4:23; 9:35). Reductionist substitutes in Paul's
time, however, turned the kingdom of God into secondary practices
focused on less significant aspects of the persons and relationships in
a gathering (see Rom 14:17; 1 Cor 4:20; 15:50). In the limited times
Paul referred to the kingdom of God, he focused not merely on the
concept of the kingdom but on the functional aspects of it--that is, its
relational context and process which are about family. For Paul, the
gospel was not about the idea of the kingdom nor merely the
eschatological hope for it. As established in the relational progression
by the Son's incarnation, the kingdom (or family) of God was at hand.
Thus Paul operationalized the kingdom in the church as the family of God
constituted in and by the Trinity.
Jesus alluded to the necessity for the
whole of the kingdom (united and complete) without being divided
(Mk 3:23-25). Paul affirmed the necessity of the whole also by asking if
Christ himself has been divided into parts (1 Cor 1:13). The term for "divide" (merizo) is used in a negative sense to imply the
reduction of unity and completeness. This involved not only the
reduction of the whole of Christ's person (for example, down merely to
his teachings) but reducing the whole of the Trinity, as if the parts
had more significance than the whole and could determine the whole
(bottom-up causation). The church in Corinth was practicing such
reductionism (1 Cor 1:10-17).
The whole of the church depends on the
unity and completeness of the Trinity to constitute it as the whole of
God's family. Any reduction of or disregard for the Trinity makes any
church practice insufficient to be whole--for example as the church in
Sardis was confronted by Christ and needed to emerge (Rev. 3:2).
Likewise, to have a trinitarian view of God and to affirm the
relationality of the Trinity without engaging the church in the intimate
relationships of family reduces the whole of church practice to a
correct doctrine without the relational significance and involvement of
family love signifying the Trinity--for example as the church in Ephesus
insufficiently practiced (Rev 2:2-4). How is this whole operationalized
for church practice? This chapter attempts to answer this question in
the historical development and the functional process of this new
ecclesiology.
Its Emergence
Ecclesiology of the whole begins to
emerge from two metaphors. The first, as discussed earlier, is "the
church as an orphanage" (a gathering of Christ's followers who remain
in some relational condition "to be apart"), from which church
practice needs to be transformed (metamorphoo, not
metaschematizo), just as the church in Sardis needed. This
imperative change relates to the second metaphor lovingly extended by
Christ to the reductionist church in Laodicea which used its own
resources to define itself under an illusion effectively promoting the
status quo (Rev 3:15-20). The classic visual of Jesus knocking at the
door represents the desires of the whole of God to have intimate
relationship with his family. This change therefore must (by its nature
as signified in the Trinity) be a relational change from a gathering of
relationships having distance (orphanage) to the intimate involvement of
relationships together as family ("open door")--the whole of God as
family constituted in the Trinity.
These linked metaphors reflect God's
response to our condition "to be apart" in order to fulfill both his
promise not to leave us as orphans (Jn 14:18) and his prayer to
experience family together with the Trinity (Jn 17:20-26). Paul
summarizes the redemptive process necessary to be God's very own family
and the function of the trinitarian persons to make this a relational
reality (Eph 1:3-14). And Paul defines the Spirit's relational work (as
previously discussed) for the relational change of our whole persons
knowing and experiencing the whole of God in intimate relationship (Eph
1:17; 3:16-19). When relationships are redeemed, they are changed from
relationships characterized by any degree of distance to intimate
relationships involving hearts open to each other and coming together,
thus belonging as family. Anything less than intimate relationships
redefines the function of the Trinity and replaces the relationships
inherent to the Trinity with substitutes of reductionism.
Simply changing the form of
relationships (metaschematizo)--for example in activity or
quantity--does not result in this relational reality because intimacy
cannot be simulated--no matter how sincere our intentions. In other
words, the redeemed relationships of the whole of God's family are not
the function of mere human effort. The relational change indicative of
transformation (metamorphoo) engages the relational process
necessary for this relational outcome. In the ecclesiology of the whole,
the church relationally reflects the whole of God constituted intimately
in the Trinity and experiences the ontological reality of God's family
signified by the Trinity because the church ongoingly and cooperatively
works together relationally with the Spirit (cf. 2 Cor 3:17, 18). That
is, this is the relational outcome when the Spirit is not misused as
discussed earlier. Without this joint relational work church practice
becomes the ontological simulations and epistemological illusions of
reductionism.
There are other aspects of
relationships involving the family process of the whole of God's family
but it is crucial to understand that their practice needs to be
predicated on the primacy of intimate relationships of love. Without the
primary function of these intimate relationships, all other church
practice functions in some relational condition "to be apart"--resulting, for example, in relational distance from
"your first love"
(Rev 2:4), in church practice "not . . . complete in the sight of God"
(Rev 3:2), or in maintaining the status quo of "you are lukewarm" (Rev
3:16). The intimate involvement of love in relationships as family is
what gives coherence to church practices for relational significance to
the whole of God (see Col 3:14 and context). Moreover, without the
primacy of intimate relationships the practice of love becomes focused
on "what to do" (for example, service or sacrifice) rather than on "how to be involved" with other persons in relationship, not merely the
situation or need. When such reductionism determines church practice,
Christ's followers have yet to learn what he desires and what matters
most to God (Mt 9:13; Jn 13:34, 35).
The Apostolic Church and the
Definitive Key:
In the initial development of the
apostolic church we see only the inaugural formulation of the
ecclesiology of the whole, albeit significant beginnings. Yet Christ
would be "knocking on the door" of the church for imperative relational
changes. Apparently, the relational involvement of love was not well
established, at least it was not consistently practiced. Indications of
this relational problem first surfaced because the widows of Grecian
Jews were being neglected in their food needs (Acts 6:1). The action
which followed can be perceived in two ways.
The first perception is the church's
response to the persons in need. While the apostles made the word of God
their priority, they set in motion the family process for family members
to care for each other (Acts 6:2-4). This appeared to be a relational
process suggesting some relational involvement since everyone was "pleased" (aresko, to please, make one inclined to, to soften one's heart toward another, 6:5). From this ministry emerged the
significance of Stephen (Acts 6:8-7:60) and Philip (Acts 8:4-40) in the
church's transition to ecclesiology of the whole.
Another perception of what took place
describes church action in response to a need or situation, not
relationally to the persons. Perhaps this is observing church
organization operating at optimum: establish ministries based on need,
designating qualified persons to serve in them within a division of
labor based on doctrine or tradition. While the apostles correctly gave
themselves over to the priority of the word of God, we need to ask if at
this stage they understood that the revelations and truth of God are for
relationships. As discussed earlier, the word of God was subjected to
reductionism and the first disciples certainly engaged in reductionist
practices with Jesus. And remnants of reductionist substitutes
apparently remained in this situation and at this stage of the church's
development, suggesting that the second perception may be more accurate.
At the heart of God's word is God's
intimate involvement of love with his people, particularly in response
to our condition "to be apart" from the whole. The widows represented
not mere needs but persons who were experiencing being apart and not
belonging to the whole. The apostles' decision to concentrate on "prayer and the ministry of the word" and to delegate
"this
responsibility" to others (Acts 6:3, 4) suggests a focus on the work to
be done over the primacy of relationship (cf. Jesus' paradigm for
service, Jn 12:26). The term for "responsibility" (chreia)
signifies a person's employment or job--ministry and service in this
situation. What this focus suggests for the apostles and the other
disciples is the enactment of roles. While the church is an
interrelation of various functions--as Paul defined later--their
practice needs to be predicated on the primacy of intimate relationships
of love. Whatever the ministry or service for God, Jesus cautions his
followers about engaging in role-playing (Lk 12:1) which invariably
reduces the primacy of relationship.
Though the church grew at this stage
(Acts 6:7), Jesus was still knocking on its door. Something was missing
despite the presence of the Spirit and their ministry of the word
because the church was relationally constrained by their
perceptual-interpretive framework. That is, the relational involvement
of their hearts appeared to be more measured than vulnerably open both
within the church (as the second perception of Acts 6 suggests and the
Jerusalem council clearly addressed in Acts 15) as well as to those
outside the church (as their provincialism indicated). Yet dramatic
events were about to happen to change the church in its transition to
the ecclesiology of the whole.
After Stephen's martyrdom in Acts 7,
the church was persecuted and scattered, from Acts 8. Up to Acts 8 the
church was essentially provincial in function and thus constrained in
its operation. As the church was persecuted and dispersed, God used this
to force the church out of the reductionist box of provincialism. This
would lead to church practice of an ecclesiology that is globalizing--the inherent nature of the ecclesiology of the whole. Yet, we need to
see this change as more than geographical and to understand this beyond
a traditional missiology of the church (spreading the gospel to all
nations), which tends to reduce evangelism to work apart from the
relationship of discipleship. We need to understand this critical change
of church practice in its relational significance because it concerns
the whole of God as family and sharing his family love--the extension of
the trinitarian relational context and process of the triune God's
response to the human condition "to be apart" from the whole of God.
And Paul was at the center of this relational change and development of
the church--emerging as the definitive key for church practice
and growth--which appeared at times to put him in tension with the other
apostles (e.g., with Peter in Gal 2:11-14; cf. Acts 9:26, 27).
In his narrative Luke places Paul's
conversion-call experience in Acts 9. The placement of this account
after Acts 8 (the book of Acts may not necessarily always be in
historical sequence) is significant for the historical perspective of
the church in its development as the whole of God's family. Luke was
presenting God's strategic activity which constituted his whole family
(kingdom) in the church. Thus we need to understand that Jesus'
revelation to Paul was not merely about Paul's conversion and the
special treatment he received as an individual. This was about God's
continued response to our condition "to be apart" from the whole and to
reconcile his creation into his family together.
As Jesus "knocked on the door" of
Paul's heart in Acts 9, he "knocked on the door" of Peter's in Acts
10 for the relational changes imperative for the ecclesiology of the
whole. While Peter struggled in this relational process to be whole,
Paul led the process to operationalize church practice in the
ecclesiology necessary to be whole. With Paul's emergence the church
would find its direction on the eschatological journey in the new
creation as God's very own family constituted in and by the Trinity.
Its Formulation
God claimed possession of his people as
his very own through redemption (as Paul summarized in Eph 1:5, 7, 14).
As the church claims the whole of its intimate life together both with
the Trinity and with each other, the process of redemptive change and
transformation also underlies a church's authentic experience of this
relational reality. This transformation involves both qualitative change
of the whole person (signified by the heart, metamorphoo) and
conversion to heart involvement in the intimate relationships of God's
family love. For transformed persons to function in these transformed
relationships, however, what this must include by its nature is a change
in basic perception of persons and relationships in order for the whole
of God's family to be realized. This shift or turnaround is fundamental
to repentance.
This issue of perception was a critical
factor which Jesus addressed as he knocked on Peter's door in Acts 10.
It is obvious in this vision that what Peter perceived (Acts 10:14) was
in contradiction to what Jesus saw (10:15). As Peter learned, his
perception was crucial because it created a relational barrier (or
distance) in the relationships necessary to be whole as God's family.
Certainly this included not only how he saw others but how he saw
himself and God as well. Peter needed transformation of his perceptual
framework in order to function as a transformed person in transformed
relationships. Thus this redemptive change involved both his theology
and more importantly his relational practice--the latter change still
being a struggle for Peter in spite of having his theology reworked.
The issue of basic perceptions held by
a church has broad implications for church practice within its life
together as well as its relations in the world. The perceptions
influencing what a church pays attention to or ignores certainly are
instrumental in determining church practice. Understanding and
addressing the source of these perceptions is critical in the process of
church development. As Paul operationalizes the ecclesiology of the
whole, the coherence of church practice reflecting the whole encounters
various points of tension and conflict with reductionism of the whole.
After summarizing the redemptive act of
adoption into God's family (Eph 1:4-14), Paul goes on to describe the
process of building the church involving the full members of God's
household as his new kinship family, in which God intimately lives by
his Spirit with all his adopted children (Eph 2:19-22). Paul began this
passage by identifying those who constitute the church as full members
of God's household, in direct contrast to outsiders, visitors,
peripheral and measured participants who essentially remain relationally
apart and do not have a sense of belonging--rendered "aliens" in NIV
(2:19, paroikos, a temporary dweller not having a settled home in
the place where one currently participates, though not to be confused
with the same word Peter used to define God's people as sojourners, 1
Pet 2:11).
The difference between full members (as
sojourners) of God's household and all others present in a church
involves the relational function of belonging to the whole--the whole of
God's family. Anything less than the trinitarian relational context and
process in effect functions only as an orphanage for God's children who
are gathered yet remain relationally (not in doctrine) apart from the
whole of God's family. This urgently raises two questions for church to
address. One, how does a church become transformed? The second is
related, what does it mean for a church to practice transformed
relationships? While we have partially addressed the second question
with the primacy of intimate relationship, the response to both starts
with transformed persons. This is the necessary beginning where Paul
opened the second chapter of Ephesians leading to the above text and
subsequent texts involving the church and its relationships.
What Paul implied about Christ in the
adoption summary in the first chapter of Ephesians--which involves what
he experienced directly with Christ--serves to define the transformed
person. The relational work clearly demonstrated that the Son traversed
the natural inequality between the holy, eternal God and all humans (cf.
Phil 2:6-8). The importance of this inequality is necessary to grasp for
both our theology and our practice. As discussed previously, despite
God's obvious position of superiority and power, Jesus did not come
down to our level to condemn us--though we are indeed less
(quantitatively and qualitatively)--nor did he reveal God to expand the
ontic differences between us and God (cf. Jn 3:17). As God's ultimate
response to the human condition "to be apart," Jesus came to redeem us
from the barriers and differences separating us from the whole and to
reconcile us with the whole of God--in coming "to save" (sozo),
the Greek term also means to make whole--in a new relationship no longer
constrained by the reductionist character of a system of inequality.
That is to say, although God always loves us downward (to our stratum),
the inequality between God and us does not determine the character of
our relationship with him.
While the distinction between Creator
and creation will never be dissolved and even though the basic and
inherent inequality between God and us can never be equalized, as Jesus
vulnerably demonstrated in the incarnation and relationally ensured in
his prayer (previously discussed from Jn 17), the fundamental function
and experiential reality of our relationship together is: intimately
involved heart to heart, relationally united as the Father is with the
Son, experientially loved by the Father just as he loves the Son.
What this defines is the initiative of
God's response to vulnerably extend nothing less and no substitutes of
the whole of God to us, and then it defines the relational outcome of
his response to our condition "to be apart" from the whole. "Full
members" function as part of and belonging to the whole because they
have become the Father's very own children through redemption by the
Son and transformation by the Spirit. Thus what invariably is the
relational consequence in any system of inequality--that is, relational
separation or distance--now becomes transformed to the relational
outcome of the new creation signified by relational belonging in the
intimate involvement of love. God does not define us by the reductionist
criteria of inequality, nor does God do relationship with us by the
process of inequality. Given the absolute inequality involved between
us, this starts to inform us about what it means to practice transformed
relationships in a context of diversity and differences.
Grace as the Functional Basis:
Yet there is more to understand about
this process of transformation. As Paul clearly established God's
relational initiative in the redemptive process of adoption, he
compellingly defined the significance of God's grace as the functional
basis for the transformed persons and the transformed relationships
necessary for the church to be transformed (Eph 2:1-10). The initial
experience of God's grace intimately changing us is best summarized by
Paul in this text. Here we find God's people going from death to life,
from the old order to the new creation, from being apart to being part
of the whole of God in what can be described as "the equalization
process." Whether our life is characterized by independence,
self-indulgence or conventional arrogance, or in the implied converse,
whether we are living in the hurtful effects of sin, we all need to be
equalized. That is, we either need to be brought down to the level of
our true humanity or we need to be raised up in order to be made whole
(cf. Ps 75:7). Whatever our condition or circumstances, we experience
consequences from which we need redemption. We need to be freed from our
enslavements in order to be adopted into God's family.
This further defines the process of
transformation for the church to be whole. These matters needing
redemption always involve our relationships, so the redemptive process
must address relational consequences, particularly from reductionism.
The influence or control reductionism may have on our lives effectively
enslaves us, thus preventing the free function of full family members.
The connection between freedom and authentic family function in contrast
to enslavement and not relationally belonging was clearly defined by
Jesus (see Jn 8:31-36), and this functional issue became the necessary
condition to authentically experience the relational outcome from God's
redemptive process of adoption.
Moreover, it is inevitable in human
relations that comparisons are made among persons. When comparisons are
perceived from a reductionist mindset, quantitative distinctions are
generated with some subjective culturally-conditioned value attached
such as good or bad, better or less (cf. Peter's perceptions in Acts
10:14). Certainly, this distinction-making process is never well
intentioned or neutral but is always used to gain an advantage in
relationships. This comparative judgment underlies defining ourselves by
what we do or have. When the process is formalized (be it with a family,
community, a society or nations), a system of inequality develops by
vertically stratifying persons. In such a system a person or group is
unnaturally subordinated by others, as Peter practiced. This
subordination is unnatural because it is an inequality between persons
who are basically and inherently equal--as all members of humanity are.
This stratification is what Paul addressed convincingly in the early
church because grace compelled no other relational outcome in the truth
of the gospel.
As God's relational initiative, grace
fundamentally alters our perceptual framework in how we see ourselves,
how we see others and thus function in relationships together. When
persons joined in Christ by grace for the process of redemption becomes
a relational reality (not merely a doctrinal truth of our belief
system), two vital changes in relationships are established and set into
motion. First, having been equalized and justified before God as a
relational outcome of Christ's relational work, we have reconciliation
(restored communion) with the Father as his very own in the whole of
God's family. Secondly, on the basis of this grace equalizing persons
before God, there is an equalization of all other relationships, without
the false distinctions of reductionism such that "there is neither Jew
nor Greek [race, ethnicity], slave nor free [class], male nor female
[gender]" (Gal 3:28). These distinctions, plus many others including
clergy-laity, cause relational separation or distance (even
inadvertently with good intentions) which functionally fragment the
whole of "you are all one in Christ." The grace of Christ's redemptive
work of adoption conclusively established the relational imperative for
perception and practice that no person is comparatively less in the
whole of God but only full members of his family without distinctions.
Paul was certainly prophetic in his
emphatic declaration that the relational transformation of this
equalization became a fully operational reality when Christ destroyed
the barriers to the intimate relationships of his new family--barriers
which include both the prevailing vertical barriers of distinctions
separating relationships and the conventional horizontal barriers of
keeping relational distance (Eph 2:11-18). Yet, without engaging the
relational imperative, the fact of this new condition along with the
presence of grace can remain static in church doctrine, the mere
possession of which is insufficient to function as a transformed church
to fulfill God's desires for his
family--as the church in Ephesus
obviously learned later the hard way (Rev 2:4). What a church must also
engage ongoingly is the dynamic process of relationships; as Christ set
into motion, this process necessitates operationalizing the ongoing
relational work of eliminating separation and distance in our
relationships along with building greater trust, intimacy, wholeness and
well-being (the relational significance of peace) in belonging to God
and each other as his family--the lack or substitute of which maintains
the church as an orphanage. As Paul operationalized for church practice
in contrast to reductionist substitutes, the combination of equalization
and intimacy in our relationships becomes: first, the clear
qualitative functional indicator that we are redeemed from the
old, and secondly, the qualitative relational indicator that
our practices are transformed to the new (cf. Paul's concern in
1 Cor 1:12, 13; Gal 4:9; Col 2:20).
Transformed persons thus practice
transformed relationships, which by the nature of grace are not only
reconciled intimate relationships but also redeemed equalized
relationships. Yet a reductionist framework of inequality and
reductionist substitutes of distinction-making separate us, distance our
relationships, fragment the whole of God's family. In Paul's theology
there is no basis of hope for transformed persons, transformed
relationships and the transformed church apart from redemptive change
from reductionism. The effect of reductionism renders church practice to
ontological simulation and epistemological illusion. And the only
alternative Paul posits to negate the influence or control of
reductionism is grace. Grace is the functional basis for the
transformed, the new, for becoming the whole of God. The urgent issue
for church practice, however, is understanding the significant
difference between grace as the functional basis from grace merely as
the theological basis. The latter is necessary but it is not sufficient
to distinguish church practice from reductionism.
This suggests that a church is
challenged necessarily to determine its basis for existence beyond
formulating a statement of faith. Each church needs to consciously and
ongoingly decide whether it is made operational by God's activity or by
human activity. This choice, of course, involves the issue central to
Paul's theology: justification. Yet, we have to deepen our
understanding of the relational significance of justification by
embedding Paul's discourse on it into the context of the ecclesiology
of the whole, which was Paul's apostolic and prophetic purpose (cf. Gal
2:7-21).
This ongoing choice between God's
effort (grace) and human effort (works) translates into the decision
(conscious or not, intentional or inadvertent) between "the narrow
path" of relational involvement with the whole of God or "the
conventional (broad) path" of reductionism and its substitutes for the
whole. While theological discussion of justification focuses on salvation--with the tendency to limit it to what we are
"saved from"--justification by grace involves the Trinity's redemptive action in the
relational process of adoption which makes God's family operational in
intimate and equalized relationships. In reductionism, justification by
"what we do" reduces the function (or even the need) of grace: first,
by focusing on human function apart (or distant) from the importance of
the heart, thus reducing the whole person; next, by substitutions,
simulations and illusions with which the relational context is redefined
and the relational process is minimized, thus reducing the relational
involvement of the whole of God; then by diminishing the ongoing
function of intimate and equalized relationships necessary to be the
whole of God's family. The consequence of a church's decision is why
this issue is so critical to the ecclesiology of the whole and helps us
understand the significance of why Paul dealt with justification by
grace so definitively for ecclesial contexts and not as a separate
theological topic of concern.
There can be a fine line distinguishing
grace as the functional basis for a church or grace as only its
theological basis. The ecclesiology of the whole operationalizes church
practice such that it can be assessed by the qualitative functional
indicator of being redeemed from the old and the qualitative relational
indicator of being transformed to the new, as noted above. These
indicators of equalized, intimate relationships are useful for church
determination because they directly involve the function of grace.
The perceptual framework of grace is
contrary to the perception of defining ourselves by what we do. The
perception of works sees self, others and God in a comparative process
of distinctions and differences which vertically structure relationships
in levels of inequality. Since God's redemptive action of grace
equalizes all of us before God and thus with each other in the whole of
God's family, the redemptive outcome for all ongoing church practice is
clearly then: grace does not allow us our distinctions and takes away
the comparative use of differences (cf. Gal 6:15; 5:6).
Our perception of differences is an
important process for the church to address: how we perceive our own
personal differences and self-evaluate, how we "see" others in
comparison and make judgment, even how we look at God and thus treat
him. Our perception of these differences exerts controlling influence on
our relationships, determining what we pay attention to and what we may
overlook or ignore. Stereotypes, for example, either dominate, control
or strongly influence how we relate to a particular human difference.
Paul even defined the need to be redeemed from our stereotypes of
Christ. As a preface to the ministry of reconciliation, Paul redefines
the framework for this relational work by declaring "from now on we
regard no one from a worldly point of view," not even Christ (2 Cor
5:16). "Regard" (oida, recognize) and "worldly point of view"
(Gk. sarx, flesh) can be rendered respectively "perceive" and "reductionist perspective"--that is, perceptions from a reductionist
framework, which includes various Christian perceptions of Christ.
Therefore, changing to the new creation necessitates transformation in
church practice that no longer perceives others with the quantitative
distinctions of a prevailing reductionist framework. If Paul makes this
redemptive change a necessity to engage the fundamental ministry of
reconciliation, this begs the question for each church: what determines
its perceptions--grace or reductionism?
For a church to have grace as the
functional basis to be operational there are deep ramifications. Grace
determines not only God's ongoing relational involvement but also, and
equally important, determines how God's people function and are
involved, notably in what we present of our person, in the content of
our communication and in the level of relationship we engage. Grace
fundamentally affects our relationships at their roots and basic
functions. Based on the relational experience of God's grace vulnerably
extended to us by the incarnation of the Son, the functional outcome of
grace demands: first, the presentation of the whole person at the very
heart of what that person is--without any qualification or concealment
because that is only what that person can be when grace prevails as the
functional basis; next, as persons practice presenting their whole
person, this opens the way (and closes any distance) in relationships to
be involved with each other on the heart level, without constraint in
vulnerable intimate relationships of love; then, since grace determines
the person presented, the nature of the relationship and the process
involved, there are no acceptable bases to God for making distinctions
among us which would create distance in relationships--in other words,
grace demands relationships which are equalized as well as intimate.
What grace demands of our person and in
our relationships is exactly what grace demands of us before and with
God--our whole person in the relationships necessary to be the whole of
God's family as constituted in and by the Trinity. The whole of our
response by grace back to God must be compatible with the whole of God's response of grace to us. Grace defines the terms for relationships
with God and simply defines the functional basis for all practice of
God's people.
While the normative perceptions of
church practice, even as family, have been seen through a lens of wide
latitude, grace does not allow us this latitude (particularly of
reductionism) as it deepens our perceptions to the very heart of the
whole of God. God has disclosed himself only as an act of grace and has
given us no other alternative to himself than by his grace. By the
relational function of grace the church is constituted and by the
function of grace in its relationships the church is made operational as
transformed persons experience transformed relationships in its ongoing
practice together as family. The church as the whole of God's family
has no other functional basis.
How does the church function as God's
family in those intimate and equalized relationships signifying
relational transformation to the whole of God? If we have adequately
addressed the previous questions for the church, our discussion of the
ecclesiology of the whole is now ready to focus on the vital operation
of the transformed church.
Its Operation
As we address the operation of the
whole of God's family, we need to keep in mind the susceptible tendency
to turn to or rely on reductionist substitutes to ontologically simulate
God's family and to settle for epistemological illusions of the
relational truth of the gospel. This tendency toward reductionism is
magnified especially when we are discomforted or feel the pressure to change--both of which are likely in the discussion ahead, if not
experienced already.
Paul allowed no negotiating room for
reductionism--as demonstrated by his confrontation of Peter--which was
why he dealt firmly, if not always clearly, with various "secondary"
reductionist issues and practices in his epistles. The latter makes it
difficult for Christians to agree on Paul's practical prescriptions
(for example, on gender) when they are removed from the context of the
ecclesiology of the whole. In spite of this issue, I suggest that Paul
would have more tension and conflict with church practice today than we
may have with parts of his teachings--whether due to our practice of
reductionist substitutes or our use of a reductionist
perceptual-interpretive framework.
The ongoing operational lens which a
church must use to assess its practice is the trinitarian relational
context of family and its relational process of family love. This
suggests the working definition for church and its operation that needs
to shape its growth and development is: the intimate interdependent
relationships of whole persons equalizing each other together in family
love as the whole family of God constituted in and by the Trinity.
When Jesus said he will build "his
church," he used the Greek term ekklesia (Mt 16:18). The term
meant the assembly or gathering of those who were called out (ekkletoi).
Ekklesia also has roots in the O.T., which the Septuagint (Gk
translation of the Hebrew O.T.) uses for Israel as the covenant
community. This embeds the Christian church in the context of God's
dealings with his chosen people and their covenantal relationship (Ex
19:5; Deut 7:6; Heb 8:10; 1 Pet 2:9-10). The N.T. extends this salvation
history as the Father pursues a people for himself in his eschatological
plan (Lk 1:17; Acts 15:14; Tit 2:14; Heb 4:9). Yet there is much more
involved to make the church functional. The incarnation of the Son--involving the complete Christology (including between the manger and the
cross) and full soteriology (including what Christ saved us to)--converges with Paul in the truth of the gospel through the relational
work of the Spirit to operationalize the church.
The word ekklesia itself appears
to have only limited descriptive value for what the church is and does.
Robert Banks suggests that Paul's usage of the term has less
theological significance than we should assume.1 As far as function is
concerned, ekklesia is a static term which is not useful to
define the church (local especially). We need a more dynamic
understanding for the church's function than merely a gathering. This
dynamic process is gained from the narrative life of Jesus and Paul's
use of other metaphors for the church, as discussed previously in the
section "The Church in Likeness of the Trinity" (Chapter 5).
Based in the Trinity, Jesus' person and
words provide us with the relationship-specific nature of involvement
with the whole God and the basis for the identity of his people as
family; these also give us the understanding of the relational
significance our involvement must engage--individually and corporately
with God and with each other. This forms the trinitarian relational
context and process for Paul's metaphors of the church, which then
combine for the necessary framework to the dynamic understanding of
church in its full vital function. For church practice, this
necessitates integrating what has been known as authentic spirituality,
and its importance of the whole person, with the corporate process of
family, and its intimate, equalized relationships necessary to be whole.
In its claim of the whole of God as
family, the church is challenged to function unlike the historic
covenant people of the O.T., the voluntary associations of N.T. times
and even the conventional institutional-organizational models of church
seen throughout church history. That is, the church is the new creation
which functions, even beyond any prevailing perceptions of family, in
life together as God's new kinship family. This does not preclude
various church forms, it only defines how they need to function.
A major part of church function is
definitive in Paul's metaphor of the human body (1 Cor 12) as it
pertains to the new creation family. If we think of this metaphor merely
as form or organizational structure, we tend to use it in a perfunctory
manner avoiding the main issues involved in it. In this metaphor, the
church is a whole, a "system" similar to biological systems.
Paul was not describing anatomy but an organic system of deeply
interdependent parts in covariation ("if one part . . . every part . .
. with it," 12:26) which function together as the whole having
synergism, where the whole is greater than the sum of its individual
parts, just as in the Trinity (12:12). Yet, this outcome of the whole
does not happen automatically for a church, regardless of what the
individuals do or do not do (cf. the church in Sardis, Rev 3:1, 2). Nor
is the synergism in a church attributed to the unilateral "signs and
wonders" work of the Spirit (note the cooperative work of the Spirit in
the distribution and purpose of spiritual gifts, 12:7). The church is
not a mystical system but a relational system which together as family
involves a cooperative relational process.
To engage with the Spirit in the
cooperative relational process inherent in Paul's body metaphor, church
practice has to resolve ongoingly the discomfort about and need to
change involved with the issues implied in this
metaphor--notably
freedom, independence, inequality, voluntary association and the
underlying reductionism, all of which have critical implications for the
whole. The system and the process of relationships necessary to make it
work coincide with the whole of God's family constituted in the
Trinity. This combines the metaphors of body and family to operationalize the church.
As noted earlier about adoption, full
membership in God's family constitutes significant relational
involvement, the quality of which cannot be adequately fulfilled by
voluntary, optional, selective practice, nor can it be substituted for
with quantity. These latter practices signify the terms for relationship
determined only by the individual, not the Father's terms for his
family functioning together as Paul pointed to in his metaphor. Such
practice is a misuse of redemptive freedom, which Paul dealt with also
in his first epistle to the Corinthians. While every member of Christ's
body willfully decided to follow him, it is the Father who chose us and
adopted us for himself to be a permanent (and full) member of his family
(Eph 1:3-14). This favor extended to us by the Father, enacted for us by
the Son and being completed in us by the Spirit is entirely a function
of relationship the terms of which altogether preclude our individual
and voluntary determination and allow for no negotiation. This is simply
the nature of relationship with the holy, eternal God and the
significance of responding to his grace. And Paul addressed the issue of
accountability in this matter with the church discipline necessary to be
whole.
This defines the relational imperative
for church practice signified in the Trinity--the same relational
imperative Christ conclusively established by his redemptive work of
adoption making all of his followers full members of his family without
distinctions. As noted about the Trinity, the trinitarian persons are
not independent from each other nor can each person be defined and
understood apart from the whole Trinity. The Trinity is ontologically
and relationally inseparable as one and also relationally and
ontologically irreducible as "three in one" in the interdependence of
the whole. The Trinity constitutes the whole of God as family without
independence from the whole and with interdependence in the whole as
equal persons. Likewise, with the body metaphor Paul operationalizes the
church without independence from the whole and with interdependence in
the whole as equal persons. Church practice must account for this.
The relational imperative for church
practice is twofold: first, dealing with each member and one's
independence and, secondly, dealing with their relationships together
and their interdependence. A church needs to address both the first
aspect without sacrificing the whole church as family and the second
aspect without sacrificing the whole person. Reductionism would simulate
the second without addressing the first or create illusions about the
first without practicing the second. Yet to account for the relational
imperative is not about enforcing what church and its members are
supposed to do but rather about living out what they are redeemed to be
in love. That is, the relational imperative is about how to be involved
with each other in the relationships of God's new family in the
relational process of family love, not about what to do.
The whole person and the relationships
necessary to be the whole of God's family cannot experience being whole
without the relational involvement of family love. Paul alludes to this
love as God's design for the church in the body metaphor: "God has
combined the members of the body . . . so that there should be no
division [relational separation or distance] in the body, but that its
parts should have equal concern for each other" (1 Cor 12:24, 25; cf.
Eph 4:16). The church cannot be operational as God's family apart from
the relational involvement of family
love--which is intimate and
equalizing--constituted in the Trinity. God's family love is the basis
for full membership and ongoing participation in the church and the
inherent practice of the church as his family.
Just as God's family love vulnerably
involved himself with us relationally in the incarnation and, with our
willful response to him, redeemed us back to his house to be adopted as
his very own daughters and sons (not servants or guests) in order to be
intimately equalized together in the interdependent relationships of the
whole of the Trinity as family, from this relational reality the
transformed church functions in the same relational process of family
love. The experience and practice of anything less is contrary to Jesus'
prayer to the Father for his followers: "I have made you known to them
and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for
me may be in them"--that is, to experience the same love as the Trinity
(Jn 17:26). The revelation of God in the incarnation is God's ultimate
response for these intimate interdependent relationships equalized
together by family love in order not "to be apart" from the whole of
God. As Paul operationalized the church, he reinforced Jesus' prayer
with his own prayer (in Eph 3:14-19) for our whole persons to experience
the love of the whole of God constituted in the Trinity.
Family love is the experience and
practice of God's family operating together in likeness of the Trinity.
Moreover, as Jesus further prayed (Jn 17:13-23), these intimate
interdependent relationships equalized by family love not only fully
satisfy those within the church as whole but their overt demonstration
of this whole in family love reflecting the Trinity also can deeply
affect those outside the church. What attracts the world is not
Christian ideology but relational experiences about the human condition
"to be apart" and the need to be part of (belong through relationship)
the whole. In other words, as the church practices God's family love in
the ecclesiology of the whole, it makes operational the fulfillment of
Jesus' and Paul's prayers as an experiential reality. And the world
will notice. (More on the church within the world will be discussed in
the tenth chapter.)
Submission as the Functional Response:
After Paul's prayer in Ephesians,
he defined specific relational actions in the process of family love to
make operational the whole of God's family--prescriptions to be whole always in conflict with and in contrast to
reductionism. And the singular relational response (cf. "one and only"
revealed by the Son) that most characterizes this relational process of
God's family love is submission--not to be confused with subjugation, compulsory
subordination and self-denial, or any other conventional notions from
reductionism such as mere self-sacrifice inadequately defining agape
love.
Submission tends to be perceived as a
passive act. In conflict with such reductionism, Paul makes necessary
the assessment of how we live (the imperative form of blepo, "look at, examine," Eph 5:15); additionally in contrast to reductionist
substitutes, he outlines the relational imperative in cooperation with
the Spirit to formulate our response as the whole of God's family to
the whole of God in worship together (5:17-20). And he culminates this
outline of the relational imperative for church practice with the
prescription: "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ"
(5:21).
While Paul used the Greek passive voice
for "submit," he was not implying anything passive. The passive voice
indicates that the subject is being acted upon by some other agent.
There is a dynamic relational process involved in Paul's prescription.
As ongoing recipients of God's family love demonstrated in the
incarnation of Christ, our only response back that can be compatible to
his relational act of grace is to submit our whole person (as is) to the
whole of God--based on God's principle of relational involvement with
"nothing less and no substitutes." Submission then is the volitional
action of the whole person in relational response to the whole of God;
and by the nature of this relational involvement submission is the full
affirmation of the whole person.
Nothing less than the whole person in
relational response to the whole of God's family love engages our "reverence for Christ." That is, without submitting to the grace of the
holy God vulnerably presented in Christ, our person in function remains
relationally distant ("to be apart") from the whole of God in Christ.
We have to understand "reverence for Christ" as a function of
relationship and as the practice of intimate relational involvement in
response back to the whole of God. Without submission our whole person
is not actually involved, and without such a response we are not
relationally connected to the whole of God, who makes our person whole
in the relationships necessary for the whole of God's family.
Submission is not only the full
affirmation of the whole person but is also the full understanding of
the absolute necessity to be relationally involved with the whole of
God's family in order for the person to be whole. Ever since the first
person was created, it was never good "to be apart" from the whole--that is, to be relationally separate or distant in the relationships
necessary to be whole. The person was never created just to be an
individual. God's design and purpose for the whole person was always to
be in relationship together with others in the whole of God as family.2
The person cannot be whole apart from this corporate whole of God's
family, which is operationalized in the church with the Spirit in the
cooperative relational process of family love. Submission practices this
relational truth.
Submission has further relational
implications in church practice--particularly for the issues implied in
Paul's body metaphor concerning freedom, independence, inequality. To
make the church operational, Paul either highlighted the need for
submission or implied the importance of it, the interpretation of which
can be misperceived when taken out of the context of the ecclesiology of
the whole.
Each of Paul's prescriptions of
submission was to counter reductionism and is totally about the whole,
thus should not be taken out of this context. The act of submission is
for the sake of the whole of God and is not an end in itself, which
either promotes or sacrifices the doer. Therefore, whenever the matter
or issue is about the whole, submission is warranted and necessary--the
absence of which diminished the whole for all involved. Submission,
however, is not warranted and is even contrary to the whole when it
serves reductionism. This suggests that when Paul calls for submission
in marriage, church polity, government and slavery he is not advocating
submission in any context if it reinforces reductionism and thus
fragments the whole. We have to understand his prescriptions of
submission in this qualitative framework of the whole of God and for
this relational purpose of the whole of God's family. Otherwise, the
practice of submission does not counter reductionism but instead becomes
reductionist.
Submission is the foremost
relational response of God's covenant people, the followers of
Christ, the full members of the church. As grace is the functional basis
for the relationship, submission is the functional response in the
relationship which involves two important relational issues: the first
defines the priority of the relationship and thus on whose terms, and
the second determines what the relationship is about in its ongoing
actual practice--the whole of God, his desires and eschatological plan,
not about us and our situations and circumstances.
Moreover, relational submission is both
a necessary and sufficient condition for the process of family love,
whereas reductionist submission is not even a sufficient condition for
its authentic practice. The single-mindedness of submission is always
the relational response necessary to take us beyond and deeper than the
subtle focus on what we do, to the primary focus on God (and his
desires) and the primacy of relational involvement with others (over
doing something for them). This response reflects how God is with us,
particularly in Christ during the incarnation and now through his
Spirit. Without submission there is no sufficient relational basis to be
involved with others beyond merely making it about ourselves in what we
do. This is a crucial issue for church practice when love essentially is
defined by what we do, not how to be involved relationally, thus making
it difficult to distinguish it from reductionist substitutes.
In the relational process of family
love, therefore, submission always antecedes love in relational
expression as well as is motivated by love for further relational
involvement. The Son submitted to the Father to share family love with
us as well as was motivated by love to submit himself to be vulnerably
involved with us, even in difficult times. We cannot love God, for
example, without our submission to his grace first; submission is the
functional response to God's initiative which unequivocally defines the
relationship on God's terms. If love precedes submission in our
practice, even with good intention, this becomes more about us and what
we do in the relationship on our terms. Relational submission then, not
love, is the conclusive relational indicator that our practice is
about the whole of God and not about us; love further extends this
relational response in progression to God's family.
Submission to Wholeness:
When Paul outlined the relational
imperative for church practice (Eph 5:17-21), his focus understandably
was on the ultimate relational practice of worship. By the nature of
worship, this outline culminates quite naturally with his prescription
of submission because relational submission is an integral part of the
meaning of worship. Specifically, submission is our (individual and
corporate) relational message of worship directly to God expressing the
significance of who we are in Christ and thus whose we are
as the Father's--nothing less and no substitutes. The significance of
this relational message expressed in submission is the relational
response undergirding the practice of the whole of the church and the
whole of each of its members.
When Paul addressed reductionist
activity in the church, notably the misuse of Christian freedom and the
incompatibility of independence, he negated this with the relational
function of submission for the sake of the interdependence necessary for
the church to be operational as the whole of God's family. He
understood that reductionism is Satan's counter-relational work seeking
to diminish the whole with simulated practices and illusions of more
which effectively reinforce our condition "to be apart" from the whole
(2 Cor 11:13-15; Eph 5:16; 6:11). As Satan influenced Eve with
reductionism to exercise independence (Gen 3:16) and tempted Jesus with
reductionist substitutes to act apart from the whole of God (Lk 4:1-13),
his counter-relational work continues to challenge the church with
substitutes and settling for less. Paul fought (agonizomai) for
the whole person and the relationships in the church necessary to be the
whole of God (Col 1:28-2:2). He knew the person cannot be whole while
practicing independence because wholeness is constituted by a person's
relational function in the whole of God's family. Additionally, as
understood in Paul's Jewish heritage, wholeness is rooted in the Hebrew
term for peace (shalom) which signifies the well-being of a
community or corporate body (cf. Eph 4:3). The practice of freedom (or
individualism) becomes reductionist when it is primarily about oneself
and one's so-called rights. To be free indeed is to be redeemed for the
sake of relationships--family relationships sharing family love (cf. Jn
8:35, 36). Submission, therefore, in relational function actually
optimizes redemptive freedom rather than constrains it.
In his personal life, Paul struggled
with using the substitutes of reductionism for his own life--perhaps
even indulged it (see 2 Cor 12:1-6); and he labored under the need to
practice relational submission for the sake of the whole of God--even
while he operationalized the church in the ecclesiology of the whole
(see 2 Cor 12:7-9). The thorn in his flesh helped Paul get beyond making
it about himself and what he could do. In addition, submission was
necessary to free Paul from any reductionism in order to go deeper in
the relationship of the whole of God. Yet it is important to grasp in
Paul's struggle that submission should not be confused with resignation
to one's circumstances--a critical distinction to help understand his
submission prescription in other social circumstances (for example,
about slavery). Resignation was not Paul's conclusion here; that would
have only reinforced reductionism. As demonstrated here by his response
to God's relational message--"my grace is sufficient for you . . . ,"
which is not about Paul's circumstances--submission is only relational.
While circumstances may be involved, submission is about relationship on
God's terms and our relational response to the whole of who we are and
whose we are.
In being the foremost relational
response and the conclusive relational indicator, submission by the
whole person for the sake of and in response to the whole of God
constitutes the relational involvement necessary together to
operationalize church practice in the relational process of family love.
The importance of the whole person engaging the whole of God's family
in relationship together is even more deeply grasped as we move from the
issues of freedom and independence to address inequality. Paul's use of
the body metaphor further involved this issue when he made church
practice operational by interdependence.
Interdependence of the church body
should not be confused with fostering dependence in its members nor with
constraining the whole person by conformity, though it certainly limits
the independence of the individual. Just as submission does,
interdependence fully affirms the whole person as important--from the
inside out in contrast to the outside in of reductionism--without
grading, for example, the person's role performed in the body. Paul
establishes each person as indispensable regardless of how others
perceive (dokeo, "seem," a subjective estimate or opinion) the
individual from an outside-in reductionist framework (asthenes, "weaker," less ability, 1 Cor 12:22; cf. 2 Cor 5:16), thus every person
is important. Furthermore, interdependence establishes all persons
(regardless of race, ethnicity, class, gender, age) within the body in a
common significant value without stratifying their place based on these
distinctions or any other characteristics (12:24b-25a). Yet, this is not
about homogeneity.
Paul was not simply suggesting a way
for the church to be operational. Nor does the body metaphor necessarily
suggest a singular form the church must have; yet whatever form a church
takes needs to follow the imperative relational functions defined by
this metaphor combined with family. In the current challenge to
formulate evangelical ecclesiology, Richard Beaton makes a similar
observation that "if the church is to reimagine what an ecclesiology
might look like in the twenty-first century, it seems that part of that
exercise will require a return to the biblical metaphors that have
contributed to the structuring of the identity of the church throughout
its history."3 Yet, it is important to grasp that Paul's metaphors imply
a functional ecclesiology which defines relational structure and process
more than institutional-organizational structure. And one of the most
vital functions he defined for the church is the interdependence of its members--not as a suggestion but as relational imperative.
The interdependence of the church
family is the new creation which reflects the image of the whole of God
as the Trinity in their relationships together as one (Col 3:10, 11). As
discussed in "The Church in Likeness of the Trinity," this is not
optional or even voluntary church practice but the relational
imperative. The function of interdependence relationally connects all
the members of God's family (local and universal) in two indispensable
ways: (1) it provides the trinitarian relational context for all persons
to be equalized with each other, and in doing so, (2) it opens access to
the trinitarian relational process of intimate relationships with each
other "so that there should be no division [Gk. schisma,
relational separation or distance] in the body, but that its parts
should have equal concern for each other" (1 Cor 12:25). Interdependence
therefore engages the relationships in the church within the covariation
of the whole (12:26), which constitutes all of a church's practices to
cohere in family love (cf. Col 3:14 in contrast to Rev 2:2-4).
Equalizing to Be Whole:
This brings us to the intentional,
unintentional and subtle vertical disconnectedness in relationships due
to inequality--even from clergy-laity distinction--as well as the
horizontal relational distance from unequalized relationships. Both of
these relational conditions constrain the whole person (notably from the
heart) because of defining the person by what one does or has and
thereby engaging in relationships on this reductionist basis of outer-in
perception of persons and involvement in relationships. In church
practice these relationships not only lack intimacy to experience family
but also preclude intimate connection to be family because the
relational involvement is not equalized. The distinctions of
reductionism applied in a comparative process always imply (directly or
indirectly) inequalities which separate or disconnect persons, distance
their relationships and fragment the whole of God's family.
Equalized relationships and
reductionist substitutes are incompatible; equalization and a
reductionist framework are irreconcilable. Since Jesus equalized persons
for relationship both during his earthly life and by his death and
resurrection, what distinguished his followers, his church, his family
is to equalize persons by extending family love for this relationship
also. When soteriology is truncated, however, church practice becomes
operationalized by a reductionist mindset of what Christ saved us
from. To operate from the full soteriology includes embracing,
practicing and experiencing what Christ saved us to (and sozo,
to make whole) in the relational progression to the Father as his very
own family. This progression necessitates the complete Christology of
the whole of God vulnerably self-disclosed in the incarnation.
What this complete Christology reveals
is that this equalizing process was initiated by Jesus before the cross.
One interaction he had demonstrates various aspects of this process.
This involved a Canaanite woman who boldly intruded on Jesus for help to
free her daughter from a demon (Mt 15:21-28). Canaanites were the most
morally despised people by Israelites in the O.T. As a pagan woman who
was assimilated into Greek culture (cf. Mk 7:36), she would not be
conventionally perceived a likely candidate to receive God's redemptive response--his disciples wanted to reject her. Jesus appeared to indicate
as much by his response about the primacy of a family's children over
dogs. How Jesus' statement was perceived is important in this equalizing
process. Dogs were considered scavengers in the Jewish community, while
in Greek custom at times dogs were pets. The woman was not a scavenger
looking for some handout--not that Jesus was implying such--though she
accepted the analogy of the children's priority to eat before pets,
which would imply staying in her place of inequality as someone less.
Nevertheless, she did not seem to define herself comparatively in those
reductionist distinctions but she continued to impose herself on Jesus.
This suggests that on the relational level she boldly approached him to
receive in effect as an equal to others in his family ("the lost sheep
of Israel," 15:24).
This is not about social mobility
and climbing the ladder of success. By vulnerably presenting her whole
person--as she was, nothing less and no substitutes--she claimed God's
favor without even knowing yet that she could be equalized by Christ.
She certainly relationally impacted Jesus and demonstrated the quality
(not necessarily quantity) of her faith (relational trust). Despite
being different and culturally perceived as less, she never defined
herself by how others did, nor did Jesus see and define her as less in
her difference (cf. Samaritan woman in Jn 4:7ff). What Jesus
demonstrated is the equalizing process and the need for his followers
together as the church to practice in relationships to be
the equalizer--a
relational work both within the church as well as in the world.
As Paul operationalized this for the
church, he said there are no "foreigners" and "aliens" in the church
(Eph 2:19). Does this imply that all diversity and differences have been
eliminated? Yes and no--yes in terms of the influence of reductionist
distinctions and substitutes, no in terms of the transformed
relationships of God's family love in which homogeneity is reductionism
(cf. 1 Cor 12:19). No "foreigners" and "aliens" exist in God's family
because persons formerly "to be apart" have been taken in (not the same
as assimilated), accepted (not the same as pluralism) and equalized (not
the same as reformed or conformed) as full members of his family,
without reductionist distinctions. It was inconceivable to Paul that the
church could function apart from equalization--though some of his
contextual prescriptions of submission appear to confuse this. In "the
mystery of Christ" (Eph 3:4-6) and "the truth of the gospel" (Gal 2:14)
equalized relationships are at the heart of the church, making it
operational as God's family. To be authentically redeemed resulted in a
process of reconciliation to be relationally one with the whole of God
signified in the Trinity and thus whole together with his very own as
family. Reductionist distinctions and their comparative inequality only
cause division, separation, relational distance which fragment this
unity or whole; equalizing is a necessary function from redemption for
the church to be operational as the whole of God's family--Paul's
thesis in Galatians, Ephesians, Corinthians.
In Banks' study about the early house
churches and Paul's formulation of community, he concludes differently:
"for Paul equality was subservient to the more fundamental idea of
unity. For this reason the idea of equality itself could never become a
leading motif in his thought."4 Yet, despite his positive observations of
the principle of equality in Paul's formulation of community, Banks
does not adequately perceive that equalization is inherent to authentic
unity, not the structural unity of the institutional-organizational
church but the functional and relational unity of the transformed church
as the whole of God's family signified in the Trinity. Moreover, he
does not account for the equalization process necessary for full
membership in the community of God's household without which, as Paul
said, church practice does not function in the truth of the gospel.
Perhaps the confusion comes from a
perception of equality as not only the basis for all church members to
assume personal responsibility for the operation of the church but also
using equality as a rationale for individualism. This tendency is
certainly an issue impacting the whole of church practice. For example,
while the priesthood of believers equalizes all of God's people,
evangelicalism historically (with roots in the Reformation) has used
this (intentionally or inadvertently) to foster individualism,
particularly since Pietism. This consequence happens when intimate
relationship with God (spirituality and piety) is not integrated into
the relational progression to the Father as his very own, which
necessitates taking one's personal place in the reciprocal relational
responsibilities of the whole of God's family. Reductionism separates
the whole of the person from the whole of the church by defining the
whole of each according to the function of quantitative aspects such as
what they do or have, thus not grasping how the person and the
relationships necessary in the church must by their nature function
together inseparably and irreducibly to be whole.
Paul never separates the person from
the function of the church, nor both from the whole of God. In further
consistency with his conflict with reductionism, his metaphors for the
church and the processes he describes for church function do not suffer
from such a reductionist perceptual framework. He does not talk about
equality in quantitative terms of what the members do or what they have;
and we should not confuse the different functions of the parts in the
body metaphor with each person's self-definition precluding equalized
relationships. Paul defines equality in qualitative relational terms of
what the members (individually and corporately) are in
relation to God (Eph 2) and who they are in relation to
each other (Gal 3). Equalization then does not reduce church practice to
the notions of the individual, rather it brings the church to the depths
of each whole person (signifying the importance of the heart) and opens
the way for hearts to come together in the primacy of the relationships
necessary to be whole. Equalizing is the function of the qualitative
significance of the triune God and the relationality of the Trinity.
Equality is the qualitative function of
transformed relationships that is fundamental to how God is involved
with us and how he wants his very own to be involved in their
relationships. The unity or oneness of the church Paul describes is the
relational outcome of this intimate reciprocal involvement of equalized
relationships, which thus form the qualitative interdependent bonds of
his family constituted in the Trinity. There was no tension for Paul
between equality and unity because, when not reduced, the one is
inextricably linked to the other to be whole. The process of
equalization is the relational opposite of individualism; and equalizing
always functions in direct conflict with any form of antinomianism (in
effect doing whatever the individual chooses), or any other reductionist
substitute. Even well-intentioned efforts for organizational church
unity and efficiency cannot substitute for the intimate interdependent
relationships equalized in the qualitative function of the church as
family practicing family love.
The Church Becomes Equalizer
For Paul, both for theological
congruence and to reflect the relational reality involving even his own
direct experience, to be redeemed is to be equalized (Eph 2:12-15a)--not
merely as a person but together as the Father's very own family in
which he intimately lives by his Spirit (2:15b-22). As God responded to
our condition "to be apart," in this redemptive process Christ indeed
vulnerably functioned as the equalizer. The church which follows
him in the relational progression with the relational work of his Spirit
also lives and functions with him as the equalizer. This is the
functional operation of family love which the Father initiated and now
extends in his very own.
As the equalizer both within itself and
within the world, the church makes operational the trinitarian
relational context of family and relational process of family love. In
likeness to and cooperation with the Trinity's response to our
condition "to be apart" from the whole, the ecclesiology of the whole
establishes church practice in the relational functions necessary to
come together to be whole. The trinitarian persons' ongoing relational
involvement with us provides the experiential basis for the practice of
the necessary relational involvement in our relationships so that we
would no longer be apart (or distant) from the whole but intimately
belong as full (equalized) functioning members of the whole of God's
family. Just as the incarnation demonstrated the Trinity's ultimate
relational response and involvement with nothing less and no
substitutes, Paul confronted the response and involvement of anything
less and any substitutes from church practice as reductionism.
Ecclesiology of the whole suggests the
only church practice compatible with the truth of the gospel and the
mystery of Christ and the only church function in coherence with God's
eschatological plan for all of creation. With the ongoing lure of
reductionism and mounting pressure from postmodernity, churches today
are critically challenged to relationally demonstrate the whole of
who they are and whose they are. This is the call that Jesus
makes the relational imperative to follow him in progression and which
Paul made relationally imperative for the church to operationalize in
transformed life together as the whole of God's family.
____________________________________________________
1. Robert Banks, Paul's Idea of
Community, rev. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publ., 1994), 46.
2. Following the lead of the
Cappadocians on the social Trinity, Eastern theologian John Zizioulas
conceptualizes personal being as a communal ontology of personhood in
Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church (Crestwood,
NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1985).
3. Richard Beaton, "Reimagining the
Church," in Evangelical Ecclesiology: Reality or Illusion?, ed.
John G. Stackhouse, Jr. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 223.
4. Robert Banks, Paul's Idea of
Community, 138.
back to top
Wholeness Study Intro
home |
