Ch 4 The Bad News of the Gospel

God, who knows the human heart…has made no distinction between all persons.

In Chicago, I grew up in a Christian home as a minority person surrounded by a garden-variety of white ethnicities, many of whom were Roman Catholics (notably the Italians and Irish). At the time the distinction between a Protestant and Catholic wasn’t apparent to me; we all seemed to believe the same gospel. Yet, growing up I also wasn’t aware of how the gospel was good news for my parents in their daily life, even though church activities occupied much of their schedule. More significantly, as a teen I didn’t see the gospel as good news, because I felt my way of life as a non-Christian was more enjoyable than what my Christian friends experienced. Later, in the U.S. Air Force I became a Christian at age twenty; and after nearly two enjoyable years growing intimately with Christ mainly outside the church, I was introduced to church teaching about what a Christian should “be”. This dominant view shifted my journey of faith unknowingly to trying to be essentially a white Christian for nearly ten years, since that (i.e. a Western gospel) seemed like the definitive model for Christians.

What this narrative points to is that the witness of the gospel is not always good news. In reality, the good news is often bad news, yet in Jesus’ gospel the two should not be confused because they are both integrally distinguished. We need to understand the bad news of the gospel in order for the gospel’s good news to disclose what is right and to grow what is whole for all human life and its human order for all persons. Thus, the reality facing all of us is inevitable:

The gospel was born in the OT as God’s relational response to the human condition (Gen 17:1-4; Isa 42:1-4). The Word in the beginning composed the good news only in relational language, the relational terms of which need to be understood in order to embrace the gospel as good news for all human life. When the Word was embodied, Jesus enacted the relational terms that clarified the gospel and also corrected any misinformed news and fake news by exposing them with bad news—the bad news of the gospel.

The good news of the gospel has been reported in various ways, with selective facts, and with nuances of its truth. In this historical process, the gospel has even become variable good news composed by alternative facts and virtual news that have augmented the gospel outside the boundaries of its theological trajectory and relational path (as in Mt 7:13-14). For example, popular today is the good news composing forms of a prosperity gospel. What is rarely reported in these contexts, however, is the bad news of the gospel. Obviously, no one wants to hear bad news, especially if we have good news to focus on. As a counter-alternative to such a selective gospel, some would consider a social gospel as reporting the difficult part of this news. Yet, the bias of a social gospel also has distorted or fragmented the whole gospel in a similar way with its reduced theological anthropology and weak view of sin, such that it too is not on the same theological trajectory and relational path as Jesus (as in Mt 7:21-23).

The conflation of the gospel with variations in one way or another has either rendered the primary significance of the gospel to a secondary significance (by inflating or reducing it), or has revised the truth (embodied Truth) of the gospel to a fragmentary reality. Either consequence lacks the whole theological trajectory and the uncommon relational path of Jesus’ gospel of peace, which are irreducible and nonnegotiable (Num 6:26; Jn 14:27; 16:33; Eph 6:14-17).

It is within this historical process that our traditions have formed. Thus, the traditions of God’s people have been variable in significance, the state of which should be neither routinely accepted nor rejected using a bias. The critical issue for tradition has been to blur the distinction between God’s relational language and human referential language—the former only for communication in relationship by Subject God and the latter merely to transmit information about Object God. Referential language is composed by the information formed (not necessarily created) from defining efforts of self-determination, which transposes God’s relational terms for relationship together (i.e. God’s rule of law) to an end in itself (e.g. Mk 7:1-4). This quantified information then loses its relational purpose and process by (1) being reduced to doctrine with assumptions about God’s authority, and (2) being observed (or conformed to) under the protective image, illusion or delusion as God’s rule of law, with a variable bias composing its related Rule of Faith (as in Isa 29:13; Mk 7:5-9,13).

In the manifesto summarizing his teaching that distinguishes his followers (Mt 5-7), Jesus clarifies his relational language and corrects the referentialization of God’s rule of law (5:17-48) and the object-ifying of their Rule of Faith (Mt 6-7). His teaching in relational language and his face-to-face interactions enacted the gospel also in this bad news. For Jesus’ gospel, the good news emerges with the bad news, and the good doesn’t unfold without taking to heart the bad. Simeon, who embraced the whole gospel as the Spirit revealed to him, clearly distinguished the gospel’s good and bad news, and he anticipated its impact on those in the tradition of God’s people:

“This child is destined for the falling and rising of many in God’s kingdom, and to be the significance that will be opposed so that the inner thoughts of many will be revealed—and a sword will pierce your own soul too” (Lk 2:25-35).

Indeed, the relational path of Jesus’ gospel intruded on the tradition of God’s people, “and his own people did not accept him” (Jn 1:10). Even though their tradition included enough similarity to accept Jesus, their theology and practice were incompatible with Jesus. The incompatibility of prevailing religious tradition was ironic but not surprising, and should alert us to existing traditions today. The gospel Jesus embodied was right for the heart of human life, and he enacted integrally the bad and good news to make right the human condition. His gospel is incompatible with injustice, and their tradition (and those today in likeness) lacked justice as defined by the relational terms of God’s authority and rule of law—regardless of their conformity in referential terms. Therefore, their Rule of Faith could not embrace the whole gospel enacted by Jesus, which exposed the injustice of their tradition. In his gospel, accordingly, Jesus clarified any misconceptions and corrected any illusions with the undeniable paradox:

“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring common peace, but a sword….” (Mt 10:34-36)

The bad news of the gospel not only antecedes the good news but necessarily qualifies what the good news is that is essential for whole justice and uncommon peace—the whole-ly relational outcome of Jesus’ gospel.

In the beginning of human history at creation, Subject God defined the parameters for human identity and function (Ps 119:73). These relational terms were designed for the wholeness of human persons to be in likeness of Subject God, whose likeness could not be achieved by self-determination. In God’s subsequent relational response of grace to their human relational condition for the sake of covenant relationship together in wholeness, God made definitive the relational terms (again not referential) for covenant relationship by composing the nonnegotiable rule of law (Dt 4:7-8; 6:4-6, the Shema; Neh 9:13-14). These relational terms were not for our mere conformity to constrain our person to objects (e.g. as the Shema became); rather they defined the irreducible terms for covenant involvement to be whole and not fragmentary (as in Gen 17:1). At the heart of God’s relational terms is the Subject’s desire for relationship together to be experienced in likeness of how the Trinity experiences relationship (as Jesus prayed, Jn 17:20-23).

When these relational terms are not clearly distinguished by relational language, they are rendered by referential language and thereby are transposed to quantified referential terms to be observed by those object-ified in preoccupation with the secondary over subject involvement in the primacy of relationship together; for example, which Judaism reduced to identity markers to conform to over covenant relationship. As objects preoccupied with their tradition, therefore, these outer-in actors (hypokrites) presented the image, illusion or delusion of those who dutifully fulfill their obligations:

“This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me in the primacy of relationship; in vain do they worship me with all their secondary efforts, teaching human precepts as doctrines for the Rule of Faith. You abandon the relational terms of God and embrace the referential terms of human tradition. You have a subtle way of substituting for God’s rule of law in order to keep your tradition” (Mk 7:6-9).

In their Rule of Faith, the referential terms of their rule of law revolved around laws of purification and keeping the Sabbath, which centered their identity on the monotheism of Object God and not the whole of Subject God. These were the core issues encountered ongoingly with Jesus (see also Mt 12:9-14; Mk 2:23-28; Jn 5:1-8; 10:22-39) that precipitated the bad news of the gospel.

Jesus’ gospel enforces the bad news of persons whose identity and function are reduced to outer in—that is, anything less and any substitutes of their whole persons created from inner out. He confronts any reduced theological anthropology and exposes the shame of those reflecting, reinforcing and sustaining the sin of reductionism—the shame that emerged from the primordial garden (Gen 3:7-9), which set into motion the injustice of the human condition. The shame of persons reduced from the whole of who, what and how they are (as in bosh, Gen 2:25) is the penultimate injustice that violates the vested rights from God inherent to all persons created in God’s image, thereby preventing the fulfillment of their inherent human need. Furthermore, the reduction of persons precludes the just claim to the privileged rights unique to all persons created in God’s image, because reduced persons do not function in their created uniqueness and thus lose their privileged rights by default. As discussed in chapter three, vested rights are irreducible and privileged rights are nonnegotiable. And persons denied these rights or squandering them are put to shame in the human condition of reduced ontology and function.

In the formative tradition of God’s people, the Sabbath has been a key identity marker to distinguish them from other persons, peoples and nations. What should have been integral, however, for who, what and how they are as persons and in relationship together became fragmenting of their created ontology and function. Consider carefully the Sabbath in God’s rule of law, which constituted the climax essential to creation (Gen 2:1-3). The Creator enacted the Subject God’s righteousness in what is right and whole, and this is how human persons are to function in likeness—function contrary to the pressure and demands of self-determination to measure up and succeed, and that preoccupy us with secondary matters at the expense of the primary. This contrary function from the primordial garden got embedded in human tradition and became entrenched in the status quo of human life. As a consequence, the Sabbath has been converted into a mere day lacking justice.

Whatever variable practice of the Sabbath we’ve encountered or engaged in, the Sabbath is integral to justice as constituted by creation. As the whole ontology of God converged in the Sabbath (“God blessed the seventh day and distinguished it uncommon”) and the function of the Creator was integrated whole (“God rested from all the work that he had done in creation,” Gen 2:3), likewise the Sabbath integrates human life. That is, integrated in what makes human ontology whole and how to function whole, notably in a human context that defines persons by the extent of what they do (whether or not in self-determination). Human life and function are fragmentary without the integration of the Sabbath, which is why the Sabbath is imperative for persons to be in created likeness to God’s ontology and function. If we observed God on the seventh day of creation, we would not know that he had just created the universe and all life; this observation is critical to make because God’s whole ontology and function is neither defined by nor reducible to what God merely does—even as immeasurable as creating the universe (or multiverse). When the Sabbath eliminates the human distinctions of what we do, it equalizes all persons before God and thus with each other just as persons created in God’s likeness. Otherwise these distinctions become defining in life.

In the created justice of God’s rule of law, the Sabbath is the central privileged right (discussed in the last chap.) that must be claimed in created uniqueness (only in the image of God) in order for the vested rights of persons to unfold to fulfill our inherent human need. Thus, the Sabbath demands from us that anything less and any substitutes in our ontology and function must cease (cf. rapah, Ps 46:10), in order to restore us to the wholeness of our person and our relationships (Dt 6:12-15; Eph 2:8-10, cf. Mt 9:13; 12:7-8). Yet, the Sabbath became and remains variable in theology and practice, observed today with a “new” normal. In spite of our traditions, the reality of the Sabbath continues to be the culmination of creation and the key essential to define what is primary and necessary for the created order to be whole. In this created order, the human person was not at the top but at the center, in order to integrate all of creation in its wholeness (as Paul highlighted, Rom 8:19-21)—not to dominate or misuse creation. God’s justice emerging from the Sabbath is the outworking of the created order for its wholeness in likeness of the whole-ly Trinity.

Therefore, the Sabbath we use will lead to the human need-rights we get, which will determine the justice or injustice we practice (see Isa 56:1-2; 58:13-14).

The Sabbath signifies the most transparent stage in the creation of all life, in which we see God being God. In the context of the world, God’s whole ontology and function just is, without any other action or activity in this moment. On this unique day, God’s relational message is “Be still and know that I am God” (Ps 46:10). At this perspicacious point of just being God, God constituted whole-ly the relational context and process of what is primary of God and who is primary to God for the whole-ly relational outcome of all persons coming together in the primacy of face-to-face relationship. Subject God blessed the Sabbath with the definitive blessing of the Subject’s face (Num 6:24-26)—the primary of God for the primacy of face-to-face relationship with the persons primary to God. Only this relational outcome is the just-nection of creation, that is, the right order of relationship together created by the Subject for subjects having the right relational connection in his likeness. Accordingly, Subject God made the Sabbath holy in order to perspicuously distinguish the uncommon from the common prevailing—and notably preoccupying us in the secondary—in everyday human life.

Therefore, God’s justice is distinguished and God’s peace is experienced just in the relational dynamic of just-nection: The relational connection required for justice of the human order in the created whole-ly likeness of God (as created in Gen 2:18).

Just-nection, then, is the unequivocal and irreplaceable antithesis that distinguishes justice from what encompasses the common denominator of injustice:

The relational distance, separation or brokenness that fragment the human order and reduce persons to outer-in distinctions, and thus to any and all relational disconnection contrary to their created likeness to God, which is consequential for preventing fulfillment of the inherent human need (as experienced in Gen 3:7-8).

Since Jesus came to fulfill God’s rule of law for justice to be whole (Mt 5:17-20), he didn’t make the Sabbath optional for persons to use as they wish. That would make justice optional also—shaping it by variable thinking and practice as demonstrated in truth and norm gymnastics—which would render human-need rights to relative enforcement, even if permissible rights allowed for such practice. In the created justice of God’s irreducible and nonnegotiable authority, the Sabbath constitutes a privileged right that we must claim in just our created uniqueness in order for the vested rights of justice to be enforced—irrevocably both for ourselves and others.

Therefore, Jesus made it essential that his gospel is embodied and enacted as follows, and imperative to be claimed and proclaimed accordingly:

The bad news of the gospel unfolds on an intrusive relational path to expose the injustice of tradition and similar conventional practices, in order that the good news emerges ‘whole in justice’ and unfolds ‘uncommon in peace’; and the gospel’s intrusive relational path encompasses exposing the shame of the status quo composed by the dominant views of theology (or related ideology) and the prevailing norms of practice, both of which are under the shaping influence of the common.

The status quo in many sociocultural contexts is maintained by an honor-shame code of behavior that controls persons to function mainly by avoiding shame. The shame, however, in an honor-shame framework has primarily an outer-in focus and thus revolves around secondary matters. Though this focus assumes it has primary consequences of being considered bad, wrong, unfair or unjust, it is insufficient shame to get to the roots of the human condition. The depth of shame (bosh) from the primordial garden is what has composed and will always compose the status quo of human life at all levels of its human condition. Bosh signifies the primary consequence from reductionism that is intrinsic to the common denominator of injustice. This depth is the shame of the status-ing in quo that the bad news of the gospel exposes in the status quo’s oft-subtle lack of just-nection.

The status quo represents the existing state of the human relational condition in general and our human relational condition in particular. In our surrounding contexts, there emerges a conventional thinking (wisdom) that establishes (formally or informally) a collection of normative values and practices, which explicitly or implicitly maintain the existing state of our human relational condition with this collective conscience. These norms define the parameters for how to think, see human life, and act daily. Since they are based on limited knowledge or biased information, however, status-ing in quo limits how we think, distorts how we see, and constrains how we act. (Recall my experience with a Western gospel.) Depending on the surrounding context, that particular status quo enforces permissible rights to the extent that its normative framework allows. The shame of the status quo emerges when vested rights are denied and privileged rights are prevented—in spite of the extent of permissible rights—which is consequential for persons fulfilling their inherent human need, including even being seduced by illusions of virtual fulfillment (as in Gen 3:6). This variable condition is the consequence whenever vested rights are reduced and/or privileged rights are renegotiated—both of which evolve from persons in reduced ontology and function, those comprising the status quo. Whatever the variant state of this existing condition, the status quo consists of the (our) human condition needing to be made right and thus of persons (individually and collectively) needing to be transformed at all levels of human life.

The good news of the gospel alone is insufficient to address the status quo. The reality is that the proclamation of the good news has made little change (if any) on status-ing in quo—likely because a cultural-political bias doesn’t perceive the status quo as needing change. Only the bad news of the gospel exposes the shame of the status quo and its need to be changed at its core. This is the whole gospel that targets the common denominator of injustice to raise up the just-nection required to fulfill the inherent human need. The gospel’s relational outcome enforces the vested and privileged rights of all persons, all of which elude the status-ing in quo in practice if not also in theology.

This was Nicodemus’ awakening when he pursued the gospel as a key member of the status quo (Jn 3:1-15). His affirmation of God’s authority and rule of law was composed by referential language, so he was shocked by Jesus’ relational language that he needed to be transformed in order to be right under God’s rule. Yet, his normative framework limited how he thought and distorted how he saw Jesus’ imperative for him to be transformed, making the gospel incredulous for him: “How can these things be?” Jesus shook up the status quo with the bad news to expose his shame: “You are a teacher of the status quo and yet you do not understand these things?” The bad news opened Nicodemus to his shame so that he could receive the good news to make right his human condition and be transformed to the whole justice and uncommon peace of the new creation. In that relational outcome of Jesus’ gospel, Nicodemus experienced the just-nection of his vested and privileged rights for the fulfillment of his inherent human need; therefore, now the whole person “who trusts in him in relational terms will never be dismayed and put to shame” (Isa 28:16; Rom 9:33).

The status quo involves the most subtle extension of the original shame of the inaugural persons in creation. They shifted from the primacy of their whole persons in relationship together in likeness of Subject God (“both naked and were not ashamed,” Gen 2:25) to the secondary of their persons from outer in, which thereby reduced them to human distinctions in fragmenting comparative relations (“they were naked and covered the primary with the secondary in order to hide their shame,” Gen 3:7,10). This shame breaks the just-nection created in God’s likeness and thereby disables persons from fulfilling their inherent human need. Any yearning for its fulfillment or dissatisfaction from being unfulfilled is readily distracted or suspended by the preoccupation with normative values and practices of the status quo—ongoingly rendering persons and relationships in virtual illusions.

The shame of the status quo is subtle and rarely acknowledged, because its normative framework is advocated, supported or sustained with complicity by the majority (notably a moral majority). Yet, the prevailing shame of persons in reduced ontology and function, who lack justice in the human order of relationships, is always consequential for denying or squandering the vested and privileged rights of God’s rule of law. And the bad news of Jesus’ gospel always holds status-ing in quo accountable and intrusively exposes its shame of broken just-nection, so that the good news of the whole of justice can emerge and its uncommon peace will unfold—with nothing less and no substitutes in our theology and practice as the sentinels of human life.

The reality of the status quo facing us, and hopefully the reality challenging us to change, is the normative framework shaping or even composing our theology and practice. For example, what forms the identity of persons and their function in daily life (not just at church), and where do we get our model for everyday relationships? Conventional sources for these shape how we see and think about right-wrong, good-bad, fair-unfair, and just-unjust. Reexamine your personal experiences and knowledge of others that I asked you to relate our discussion to; what shapes how you see and think about them? The reality unavoidably facing us and challenging us is this: How we live everyday either falls within the normative framework of the status quo or claims Jesus’ gospel—the latter then countering the status-ing in quo of the former, which Nicodemus would testify shakes up the status quo at the core of its theology and practice. In other words, we cannot claim Jesus’ gospel without the bad news, and to only assume we have claimed the good news is to live within the status quo of our theology and practice—which can be the status-ing in quo’s spectrum encompassing both conservatives and liberals.

Jesus’ gospel distinguishes the depth of just-nection and, conversely, just-nection distinguishes the heart of Jesus’ gospel. This just-nection was constituted by the Word in the beginning, and the Word embodied and enacted by the gospel in relational response to the common denominator of injustice to transform its shame to just-nection (Jn 1:1-3,14). Those of the status quo, however, could not claim the good news because they wouldn’t receive the bad news (Jn 1:4-5, 10-11). Again and again, status-ing in quo involves the subtle ongoing extension of the recurring shame from the primordial garden.

Therefore, Jesus’ gospel challenges how we think and see in our life, and it requires us to have the mindset to interpret daily life and the perceptual lens to see everyday life in its true context. This mindset and lens involve having the following understanding of the human person and the sin of reductionism that emerged from the primordial garden and evolves today in the status quo:

Human persons and their reductionism extend from the primordial garden in a pseudo-dialectic that constructs the normative thinking, perception and action composing the status quo, which unfolds in three steps.

1. The pivotal juncture when persons in just-nection become disconnected from their primacy in right relationship together as whole persons from inner out (as in Gen 2:18,25; 3:7).

2. The point of disjunction when persons take an opposite (contrary, counter or conflict) recourse in simulating relationship merely by association rather than depth of relational involvement, whereby they substitute virtual connections to blunt or divert the shame of relational disconnection (extending Gen 3:7-10).

3. This pseudo-dialectic, however, doesn’t reconcile the first two steps in a new synthesis but results in a different human order from creation, a mutating variant difference in which (1) persons are reduced from the inner-out primary to the outer-in secondary of life and (2) relationships are fragmented by persons’ outer-in distinctions and stratified according to the order’s inescapable comparative process that consigns persons to a scale of better-less, desirable-undesirable, good-bad—all of which converge to form the normative values and practices framing the status quo in human inequality with human inequity.

The normative framework of the status quo—which pervades (if not prevails in) our theology and practice—biases our mindset to interpret daily life and distorts our lens to see everyday life in its existing context, so that it keeps us from the true context of human life and its essential order integrally (1) created by the Word, (2) embodied by the Word in relational response to the (our) human condition, and (3) enacted by the Word with the gospel to reconcile persons to the primacy of just-nection. Just-nection is the only relational outcome from the intrusive relational path of Jesus’ gospel, without which is a different gospel having no significance except for the status quo.

Anything less and any substitutes for just-nection simply fall into the common denominator of injustice. This is the irreplaceable reality of creation, which cannot be reduced to variant ontology and function for persons and their relationships without fragmenting their wholeness created in likeness just of God. The Creator created human persons in just-nection, because the human person by the nature of God’s image cannot be in any condition of being alone but is constituted whole only in reciprocal relationship together in likeness of Subject God, the Trinity (Gen 1:27; 2:18,25, cf. Jesus’ gospel prayer, Jn 17:20-23). From this irreplaceable reality in the primordial garden, the created order of relationships in wholeness was reduced and fragmented, thereby implementing a pseudo-dialectic that reorders the right relationship based on God’s justice with simulated relationships lacking just-nection—all of which then render persons to be essentially alone in the company of others (even at church, among friends and family). These reordered relationships subtly no longer give primary worth to the whole person from inner out, subject persons who are directly involved in the primacy of whole relationship together at the vulnerably intimate level of hearts joined together without shame, and thus who belong to each other as family in the image and likeness of the Trinity.

The image of God is a common reference found in the conventional theology of status-ing in quo. A major problem for most Christians in their understanding of God’s image, however, is that God is usually perceived foremost by only some “image” (virtual or imagined) they have about God rather than knowing and understanding God from the relational outcome of direct involvement in relationship together (the just-nection of creation). Such a virtual or imagined image of God is ironically analogous to the so-called “clothes” the emperor is wearing in classical narrative, when in reality the emperor has no clothes on. This image assumes (in a leap of faith) who, what and how God is and constructs a bias of how humans are created in that image.

Consider carefully the normative patterns for everyday life that evolved from the primordial garden and extend into the status quo. Human gender was skewed to side with the male, and the female found worth in relation to the male while in a subordinate position (Gen 3:16). Human actions cause the fragmentation of physical creation and the deterioration of the natural environment, and humans will suffer from its abuse (3:17-18). Work becomes the primary identity for persons and the basis for their self-worth, all while human labor strains, struggles and is controlled by a context lacking just-nection (3:19). Human relations are embedded in the secondary and entrenched in their shame blunted by protective images, illusions and delusions composed in reduced ontology and function (3:21). These are just some of the normative patterns that extend into status-ing in quo to comprise everyday life. Certainly, truth and norm gymnastics keep evolving variants.

These normative patterns generate assumptions about human life that form cultural and political biases for how we see and think about justice in everyday life. Since these biases are shaped without just-nection, what emerges for justice is variable, virtual or simply lacking any significance for the right human order—perhaps shrouded with diversity. Yet, out of this process emerges the conventional meaning of social justice. Jesus’ gospel clarifies that social justice is inadequate for human life and its right order, and corrects the use of such a notion (especially by his sentinels) as a reduction of the inherent whole-life justice created by God. Whole-life justice is irreducible and its human-need rights are nonnegotiable, but social justice is the pervasive substitute for them composed variably and enforced with relativity. Thus, social justice becomes the normative shaping of life in the image of God, which then is relative to the cultural and political biases of the status quo. In Jesus’ gospel, for all persons in the image created by God, justice is not merely social but comprises the whole of life from inner out—involving the whole person and the breadth and depth of all their relationships, without the limits and constraints of human bias (as in Mt 5:22,28,37,46-47).

Social justice revolves around permissible rights, and this enforcement of permissible rights becomes a variable process relative to the normative patterns of the surrounding context’s status quo. The pervading reality is that status-ing in quo evolved from the break of just-nection, and its shame adapts subtly in surrounding contexts with the construction of virtual reality simulating justice (as in social justice). Whole-life justice centers on the vested and privileged rights of all persons—none of which can be subject to human bias and shaping—and, therefore, by necessity it counters the status quo and exposes its shame occupying the common denominator of injustice. The challenge of Jesus’ gospel is to change the status-ing in quo in our theology and practice. This indeed is the bad news of the gospel that his sentinels of human life are called to proclaim, and to claim as needed for any lack of just-nection.

The theology and practice from tradition and/or the spectrum of conservatives and liberals (including the related politics) comprising the status quo raise this pivotal question: What is reinforced and sustained in everyday life, and what in life itself is being changed? Without much conscious thought, the first half of the question would be answered with the assumption that the existing norms are either neutral enough to reinforce (explicitly or implicitly) or positive enough to sustain. The latter half calls for consciously examining existing norms without assuming the false distinction of neutrality, and then challenges negative norms to be changed. For example, technology itself may be neutral but the use of technology is not, and negative norms of technological usage (demonstrated on the internet and in social media) need to be changed rather than reinforced or sustained (recall mama and papa bear in chap. 2). Jesus’ whole gospel raises this pivotal question and ongoingly holds accountable all who claim the gospel, notably those who proclaim it—accountable namely for not first claiming the bad news before proclaiming the good news.

The early disciples demonstrated the influence that the status quo’s norms had on them. This emerged distinctly in the tension between them over their dispute about which of them was the greatest (Mk 9:33-34; Lk 9:46; 22:24). Like most Christians, the early disciples used a reduced theological anthropology to define their identity and determine their function by what they do and have from outer in. In our Christian contexts, we may not be asking which of us is the greatest (or first and foremost), but if we use such a reduced theological anthropology, we embed our persons in an inevitable comparative process with others (notably about resumes). This comparative process measures persons on the basis of their achievements, successes and accumulated resources, or potential thereof, and makes distinctions of persons accordingly (e.g. consider an academic vita or a ministry portfolio). These distinctions construct a human order between persons to stratify them to a level justified by the comparative system, which unavoidably fragments their relationships to an inequality that cannot experience just-nection, even at the upper strata.

When the early disciples focused on who was the greatest, they didn’t understand the shaping influence on their theology and practice exerted by the prevailing norms of the surrounding status quo. Assuming that the norms were either neutral enough to reinforce or positive enough to sustain, they simply functioned accordingly in daily life and thereby by default also absorbed the bad news into their existing way of life. What we need to understand about this norm gymnastics is that its practice disables the just-nection of its participants by rendering them as objects under its influence. Therefore, Jesus was concerned that his followers would be disablers of justice and become enablers of injustice, which would certainly counter the bad news and obviously contradict the good news of his gospel.

How Jesus addressed the issue has been misperceived and thus misapplied. Jesus’ face-to-face response to them didn’t reverse the desire “to be first or foremost” with a competing human order in which one “must be last of all persons and servant of all others” (Mk 9:35). Rather he challenged them:

“Unless you change by turning around [strepho] from defining your person from outer in and become vulnerable persons from inner out like children, you will never have just-nection in God’s kingdom. Therefore, whoever honestly defines their person like this unpretentious person is equalized among all persons in God’s kingdom” (Mt 18:1-4)—reinforcing the relational outcome of the Sabbath.

The disciples, however, didn’t undergo that turn-around change (transformation), but continued to define themselves by the prevailing norms, even up to their last table fellowship with Jesus just prior to the cross (Lk 22:14-24). Here again, Jesus’ face-to-face response to them wasn’t to reverse the prevailing human order with serving as the highest position (Lk 22:25-27). What Jesus exposed with the gospel’s bad news was the existing stratified order enforced by power relations. These power relations also function covertly, for example, by the paternalistic actions of “so-called benefactors” who control others by their subtle manipulations under the illusion of the common good. This inequality is the expected consequence for those engaged in the human comparative process; this evolves for any of Jesus’ followers from both (1) their theological anthropology reflecting and reinforcing reduced ontology and function and (2) their shallow understanding of sin without its roots in reductionism and thus sustaining reductionism—each in contradiction to his gospel. Such persons are subtle disablers of justice who become misguided enablers of injustice.

So, where does this leave his followers as church leaders and as those working for justice and peace?

This brings us back to the crossroad of the narrow gate-road and the wide gate-road, to the junction of Jesus’ uncommon path and the common path, to the disjuncture between the irreducible and nonnegotiable just-nection and the common denominator of injustice. The bad news of Jesus’ gospel always brings person to this critical intersection of life, which is why proclaiming the bad news is indispensable and not optional. One of the critical problems facing us at this crossroad is that each alternative may have a similar presenting appearance, and the distinction between them will not become apparent until the roots of each are exposed by the depth of reality in everyday life. This critical problem is addressed by Jesus in his manifesto for his followers (Mt 7:24-27). There are common illusions about the construction of a human order, about building conventional structures in a society, community and family, even about the development of churches and ministries, whose foundations appear to be on the right basis until the hard realities of life expose their shortcomings (e.g. about persons, relationships and sin), bring down their bad assumptions (e.g. about the common good), and crumble their misplaced (false) hopes and practices (e.g. about peace and justice).

The Word enacted the created justice of God’s rule of law, which embodied the nonnegotiable Way, the invariable Truth and the irreducibly whole Life from inner out for the primacy of reciprocal relationship together with the whole-ly Trinity (Jn 14:6-7). Based on this relational process, his sentinels are to (1) listen carefully to “the word from my mouth” (Eze 3:17, cf. Mk 4:24) and (2) “act on them in your daily practice” (Mt 7:24) and (3) “you shall give others warning from me” (Eze 33:7), thus (4) to function as shepherds of God’s flock (as in Jer 23:3-4). This relational process became the functional model for church leaders to grow both in their own development and for the church as family in the primacy of just-nection. This growth requires redemptive change from the prevailing norms of the status quo and related tradition, in order for that old to die and the new to emerge truly as new (as in Lk 5:33-39; 2 Cor 5:16-17; Eph 4:22-24). This relational process and outcome of the gospel is predicated on claiming the unredacted bad news, contrary to being absorbed by its redaction.

No one knew the need for personal transformation more profoundly than Paul. The misguided passion of Saul was transformed into his enlightened response to the whole of God (i.e. the pleroma of God, Col 1:15-20; Eph 1:22-23). In his integral fight for the whole gospel and against all reductionism, Paul gathered the leaders of the churches in Ephesus to make irrevocable the imperative of their calling: “For I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole saving purpose [boule] of God. Keep watch over, pay close attention, devote yourself vulnerably [prosecho] to your whole person and all the flock, of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God” (Acts 20:27-28). Since Paul was well schooled in his religious tradition (Acts 22:3; Phil 3:5-6), he was aware of previous shepherds of God’s flock who took care of their self-interests and engaged in making distinctions among persons (as in Eze 34:1-6; Jer 50:6, cf. Jude 11-13). This oft-subtle lack of just-nection was the status quo condition that Jesus ongoingly encountered while proclaiming the gospel (Mt 9:35-36). Contemporary shepherds also encounter this condition in the church, whether they recognize it or not, which makes Paul’s imperative for their calling a valid source of bad news composing the gospel.

The urgent question facing the sentinels of human life is: Will we be shepherds reflecting, reinforcing or sustaining the common denominator of injustice, or will we be shepherds of justice in likeness of the Shepherd (Jn 10:14-16, cf. Eze 34:11-16)?

As evolved from the primordial garden, the pivotal shift of persons from inner out to outer in formed the critical distinction for human persons that constructed human identity and function. From this defining distinction evolved related formative human distinctions (such as race/ethnicity and class, besides gender), which have adapted into the prevailing norms of everyday life such that they pervade even the theology and practice of God’s rule of law and its order. Human distinctions were the critical issue underlying the problems in the church that Paul faced, fought against, and worked for transformation. Fighting intensely with the bad news of the gospel, Paul confronted Peter face to face for distinction-making in the church that disabled justice in the church and enabled Christians to practice injustice. This was necessary because Peter had yet to turn around from his contradiction of the gospel, even after Jesus corrected his theology (Gal 2:11; Acts 10:13-16). Similar outer-in distinctions fragmented the church, much to Paul’s grief and frustration (1 Cor 1:10-13; 3:1-4,18-22; 4:6-7; 2 Cor 10:12); and this practice countered the bad news and contradicted the good news of the gospel (Gal 3:26-29; Col 3:9-11; Eph 2:14-22).

From creation the whole-ly God did not make distinctions of persons—“both naked and were not ashamed of the whole who, what and how they were” (Gen 2:25). In God’s rule of law for human life and its order, the Subject made no distinctions in the ontology and function of persons in likeness of the Trinity, which distinguishes the church in its whole identity and function that is fulfilled only in the primacy of relationship together vulnerably equalized without distinctions (as in Acts 15:9). Christian leaders who practice anything less and promote any substitutes are shepherds functioning as disablers of justice as created by God and enablers of injustice composing the common norms of everyday life—the distinctions of those “naked from outer in and covering up the whole who, what and how they are” (as evolved from Gen 3:7,10). Those with such distinctions become mere objects shaped by the prevailing norms, rather than subjects fighting against their reductionist influence.

This then raises key questions needing our urgent response: “Where are you in this human condition?” and “Who tells you that you are naked?” (Gen 3:9,11). The vested and privileged rights for fulfilling the inherent human need of all persons are at stake in our response.

On his intrusive relational path Jesus ongoingly responded to persons denied their human-need rights, yet he was countered by leaders serving as sentinels of the law, shepherds of the flock, who functioned as disablers of justice and enablers of injustice (e.g. Mt 9:1-13,27-34; 12:9-25; Lk 7:36-50; 13:10-17; Jn 5:1-15; 9:1ff). The inequality of their rule of law and related Rule of Faith converged in the temple, which had become re-constructed with a comparative system of inequality that fragmented their relationships in a stratified order. Their distinction-making process of inequality denied persons their vested and privileged rights for access to God’s house for the fulfillment of their inherent human need. Later, of course, Jesus exposed this injustice, deconstructed the inequality, and reconstituted God’s house for the just-nection of all persons, people and nations (Mk 11:12-18); John’s Gospel records this pivotal action near the beginning of Jesus’ intrusive relational path in order to clearly distinguish both the bad news and good news of Jesus’ gospel (Jn 2:12-22). Human distinction-making has always been the underlying issue at the roots of injustice and a prime symptom of absorbing the bad news. Christian leaders need to recognize the presence of this in their theology and practice or be subject to subtly falling into becoming shepherds and enablers of injustice—those who are disablers of justice even with their good intentions.

Until his transformation, Peter was one of those leaders with good intentions who simply reinforced and sustained the core norms explicit to his tradition and implicit to his surrounding context’s status quo. This made evident his use of the status quo approach that masqueraded the bad with his truth and norm gymnastics. By design or default, this entailed having a theology and practice that countered the bad news and contradicted the good news of Jesus’ gospel (e.g. in his theology, Mt 16:21-23, and in his practice, Jn 13:5-8). In anticipation of this condition for Peter and to distinguish the pivotal alternative for his leadership function, Jesus asked Peter face to face:

“Do you involve your whole person with me in the primacy of reciprocal relationship together in likeness of my involvement with you?” “Yes…yes, indeed…of course I do.” Then, “Feed my sheep my words…shepherd them with justice…grow their persons without distinctions so that their vested and privileged rights will be enacted to fulfill their inherent human need to be whole as family together” (Jn 21:15-17).

As the right Shepherd, “I feed and shepherd the flock with justice” (Eze 34:16) and “proclaim justice to all persons, peoples and nations” (Mt 12:18). And he expects nothing less and no substitutes from leaders for their ontology and function in his likeness.

For those in likeness of Jesus, their righteousness and justice must be integrated (just as “righteousness and peace kiss,” Ps 85:10) and be the defining basis for their function (“the foundation of your throne,” Ps 89:14). In other words, the whole of who, what and how they are must be in just-nection in order to “go before them and make the intrusive relational path for their steps” (Ps 85:13). Subject God “loves righteousness and justice” (Ps 33:5) but only in the invariable terms of relational language, just as God’s righteousness and justice are invariable and thus are nonnegotiable for those in likeness (cf. Jer 9:23-24).

Therefore, as Jesus’ whole-ly followers, his shepherds cannot function as disablers of justice and his sentinels cannot function as enablers of injustice. They “must follow me in the primacy of reciprocal relationship together in wholeness” (Jn 21:19,22). And Peter evidenced as a defining harbinger for church leadership that the underlying reality surrounding all of us is the pervasive dynamic of distinction-making, which evolves in a comparative system to fragment just-nection for persons and their relationships, both in the church and in the world. If this bad news is not claimed as the hard reality, then it unavoidably, inescapably and inevitably is consequential for absorbing the bad news in one’s own life and therefore reinforcing and sustaining the bad news in all human life.

On his intrusive relational path, Jesus was vulnerably involved with persons at all levels of everyday life: “When he saw these persons, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and fragmented [rhipto], wandering like sheep without a shepherd” (Mt 9:35-36). When he came to the main collective context of the status quo establishment, “he wept over it, saying, ‘If you, all of you, had only recognized on this day what makes for peace! But now that depth is hidden from your eyes’” (Lk 19:41-42). In his heart the depth of his feelings stirred: “How often I have longed to embrace your persons together as a just shepherd gathers her flock under her care, but you were not willing to enter into the primacy of relationship together in wholeness” (Lk 13:34).

What Jesus essentially responds to is the prevailing condition of relational orphans: persons who are alone in the company of others because of relational distance, separation or disconnection in contradiction to their created likeness of God (Gen 2:18), thus who live in a state lacking just-nection. Relational orphans are not a metaphor but the existing reality of our human relational condition in everyday life. The breadth and depth of this inescapable reality is that the lack of just-nection simply results in relational orphans. The global church today following Jesus on his intrusive relational path is faced with the same conditions he faced, both in the church and in the world. Any and all situations or circumstances lacking just-nection mean the presence of relational orphans; and in the context of the church the presence of relational orphans occupies much of church space—persons obscured by the normative practices of the church. These practices need to be exposed as Paul did in order for these persons to be embraced as relationally belonging to Jesus’ church family—not belonging as merely church members but vulnerably embraced in the primacy of intimate and equalized relationship together (the wholeness Paul made definitive for the church, Eph 2:14,19-22; Col 3:15).

When the identity of Christians is examined, for example, it is defined more by the secondary over the primary; and their relationships typically lack just-nection, despite their simulation of fellowship and community. Both conditions expose the fragmentary ontology and function of those associated within the church, which are not dissimilar conditions of those surrounding the church. Jesus’ gospel, therefore, challenges the global church in how it thinks and sees in today’s life, and it requires the church to have the mindset to interpret daily life and the perceptual lens to see everyday life in its true and full context. This indispensable mindset and lens involves understanding the make-up of human persons and the pervasive influence of reductionism, which evolved from the primordial garden in a pseudo-dialectic that has adapted into the prevailing normative thinking, perception and action shaping the church today.

We need to review this three-step pseudo-dialectic (discussed earlier) to understand how we and the church need to change according to Jesus’ gospel. We need to know unequivocally (1) the pivotal juncture when persons in just-nection become disconnected from their primacy in right relationship together as whole persons from inner out—the created justice constituted by Subject God for human persons to be subjects (in contrast to objects) in the Trinity’s likeness. Next we need to clearly understand (2) the dynamic point (neither static nor singular) of disjunction when persons engage an opposite (contrary, counter or conflict) alternative of simulating relationship merely by association rather than depth of relational involvement, whereby they substitute virtual connections to minimize the subtle condition of relational disconnection as relational orphans (e.g. the dominant experience of social media). Then we need to honestly recognize that (3) rather than reconciling the first two steps into a new relational outcome, this pseudo-dialectic is typically engaged to reflect, reinforce and sustain a different human order from creation—that is, some form of the common’s human order that conjointly reduces persons from the innermost primary to the outer-in secondary of life, and fragments their relationships by persons’ outer-in distinctions that become the measure to subtly stratify them in their association together.

If churches, ministries of justice and peace, and their leadership don’t unequivocally know when persons become disconnected from just-nection, how do they know when persons are relational orphans and need to be pursued face to face in order to relationally belong to Jesus’ church family (just like “my lost sheep,” Lk 15:1-7)? In contrast to common use, belonging is not a mere identity marker or an inscription worn by those merely in association together but the relational process and outcome of deep involvement in reciprocal relationship as family—determining belonging only by these relational terms. This vulnerability of relational belonging is the reason that the persons Jesus longed to bring together in his family relationship were unwilling (Lk 13:34). Further, if churches, ministries and leadership don’t understand clearly when persons substitute for relational connections with mere simulations of relationship, how do they respond to the underlying reality of their condition as relational orphans (“like sheep without a shepherd,” Mt 9:36)? Relational disconnection is the (our) human relational condition that prevails in everyday life in the world and pervades weekly church life. Moreover, if they don’t willfully and vulnerably recognize a human order contrary to creation that exists in their midst, how do they know, understand and recognize when persons are reduced to their distinctions and relationships are fragmented accordingly—which are indispensable so that they can help bring redemptive change for their wholeness?

Apart from acute symptoms presented by persons and/or their bad situations and circumstances, the underlying human relational condition identifying relational orphans is only known, understood and recognized from this pseudo-dialectic.

A remaining issue, however, still needs to be exposed. The above three steps converge to form the normative values and practices framing the status quo. This normative framework has been adapted to pervade our theology and practice, which has biased our mindset to interpret daily life and distorts our lens to see everyday life in its existing context. The far-reaching consequence keeps us from the true context of human life and its essential order created by the Word, enacted by the embodied Word integrally with the bad news of the (our) human relational condition and the good news of reconciling persons from relational orphans to the primacy of just-nection. This exposure—as witnessed in Peter—demands the redemptive change to transform persons and relationships to wholeness (as signified by the “new wine,” Lk 5:36-39). The relational outcome from this transforming change involves the peace that Jesus grieved over his flock for not knowing, understanding and having (Lk 19:41-42). Therefore, in order for the transformation needed for his church family to embrace all persons without distinctions, Jesus cleaned out the old (“wine and wineskins”) so the new can emerge as “a house of just-nection for all persons, peoples and nations without distinctions” (Mk 11:17). His invasive action should raise concern for the global church about how many churches today also need to be cleaned out of distinction-making practices that disable just-nection.

In his intrusive relational path, the truth of the whole gospel emerges as nothing less than Jesus’ uncommon gospel of wholeness, distinguished by no substitutes for this relational process and outcome: The bad news of the gospel is always action (not merely words) integral to the good news, without which redemptive change is incomplete and how we think, see and act don’t really turn around (as demonstrated in Lk 22:24, contrary to Mt 18:1-3).

When distinctions were made in the early church, persons were left out (Acts 6:1), and were disparaged (1 Cor 1:12; 3:21; 4:6), and were considered dispensable (Col 2:16-19), thus necessitating Paul’s clarification (1 Cor 12:21-22). This explicit or implicit discrimination was consequential for the church not growing in wholeness just as Jesus promised (his uncommon peace, Jn 14:27) and prayed for to be in likeness of the Trinity (Jn 17:20-26). Paul fought against this fragmentation by extending the bad news that Jesus initiated with the gospel. This correction was essential for the church’s wholeness. Therefore, in order to counter the fragmenting distinctions in the church, Paul made Jesus’ uncommon peace imperative as the only determinant for the integral identity and function of the church in wholeness (Col 3:11,15).

At the same time, Jesus’ presence and involvement through the Spirit further extended his correction also of the church’s reduced identity and function. This was evident in Jesus’ post-ascension critique of churches (Rev 2-3). Along with the Spirit, he exposed the distinctions that were the basis for various church identities. The church in Ephesus (Rev 2:1-3) made primary the distinction of doctrinal correctness, for which they fought rigorously at the expense of having primary involvement in relationship together—perhaps like the new Reformed emphasis in some churches today. With preoccupation in the right doctrine, they “abandoned the primary relational involvement you had at first” (2:4), and thus without the right relationship they lost just-nection to become relational orphans. The church in Thyatira (2:18-23) was a different activist church with the distinction of being tolerant of surrounding practices, a subtle bias whereby they based their identity on a hybrid theology and an inclusive practice—both of which Jesus rejected upon his underlying examination that “searches minds and hearts.” The distinctions of these two churches represent competing segments of the spectrum of activist churches today, which have also subtly fallen from just-nection in spite of good intentions to serve the cause of Christ with well-meaning efforts to compose the integrity and witness of the church.

Further critiqued by Jesus, the church in Sardis (Rev 3:1-2) was a popular church with an esteemed reputation based on a distinction of being lively—much like mega-churches and emerging churches of millennials today. The distinction (or brand) of their identity didn’t go deep, however; and when the underlying reality of their real (not virtual) condition was exposed by Jesus, the simple fact was “you are dead.” They needed to “wake up” and face the reality that their outer-in distinctions revealed their ministry not to be “complete [whole, pleroma] in the lens of my God.” The church in Laodicea (3:14-18) was a typical church, which based their identity on the distinctions of their abundant resources. In their thinking, their economic wealth, financial security and medical well-being made them self-sufficient and special, when in reality they were indistinguishable from the common and even distasteful to God for primary function. The distinctions used by these churches biased how they thought, perceived and acted. The consequence was to be in a theological fog with a skewed practice, which unavoidably shaped the church without just-nection as a gathering of relational orphans needing wholeness.[1]

Ever since human distinctions emerged from the primordial garden to reduce persons from their whole ontology and function, the human order has been deconstructed from its relational likeness to the whole-ly Trinity and reconstructed in inequality, intentionally or inadvertently. The same counter-relational dynamic of reductionism evolves in the global church, while adapting (subtly or not so subtly) to its variable theology and practice to promote, justify and sustain explicit or implicit inequality in churches and among their persons and between their relationships. One subtle indicator of inequality in the church, for example, has evolved from a “separate but equal” doctrine. Whether based on racial or economic distinctions, this approach to church growth and ministry may ostensibly claim equality of persons in its theology, but its practice discriminates to cause and sustain inequality. This pervasive approach has been the justification for the church growth principle of ‘the homogeneous unit’. The reality, however, is that ‘separate but equal’ promotes disablers of justice and develops enablers of injustice.

The unavoidable discrimination intrinsic to the inequality from all such distinctions (including even highlighting spiritual gifts) is consequential for the church not being transformed to the new creation. The new creation church emerges only from the relational outcome of persons without distinctions (Gal 3:26-28; 6:15, cf. 1 Cor 12:4-7), who are reconciled in right relationship together with the whole-ly Trinity (1 Cor 12:12-13; 2 Cor 5:16-18) as the embracing church without distinctions and related inequality (Eph 2:19-22; Col 3:10-11). These are the consequences facing the global church today in its distinctions. As Jesus made paradigmatic for all his followers and definitive for the church:

Therefore, such churches are accountable for serving as disablers of justice and as enablers of injustice—thereby responsible for countering the bad news and contradicting the good news of Jesus’ gospel.

From the beginning, relational orphans have needed an embracing family without distinctions and inequality for them to relationally belong to. In the Trinity’s relational response of grace to the (our) human relational condition, the church was constituted in relational likeness to the whole-ly Trinity in order to be whole and uncommon—thus distinguished from the common and fragmentary—as the embracing church family without distinctions and inequality:

The relational dwelling of the Trinity’s vulnerable presence and intimate involvement for the just-nection of all persons, peoples and nations to be reconciled in wholeness of relationship together—the whole-ly relational process and outcome definitive for the church (as summarized by Paul, Eph 2:14-22).

If churches, their persons and relationships are not to counter the bad news and contradict the good news of Jesus’ gospel, then we have to change our assumptions and biases in our theology and practice. These misguiding assumptions and misleading biases have transposed the primacy of intimate face-to-face involvement in relationship together without distinctions, and have substituted hybrid alternatives, plus have become preoccupied with the secondary lacking wholeness, and have depended (even boasted about) on our resources and abilities to define our identity and determine our function. That is to say unequivocally and without apology, we need to change our theological anthropology and view of sin, and be transformed in how we think, see and act in everyday life, both as subject persons and collectively as family (as in Rom 12:2).

1. How many churches today don’t really know what will bring them wholeness, still causing Jesus to weep?

2. How many churches today need to be cleaned out in order to be the relational context and provide the relational process for the just-nection of all persons?

3. How many churches would be unwilling to be vulnerable for being embraced together as family in intimate and equalized relationships, no matter how much Jesus longs for this relational outcome?

Jesus continues to “proclaim the bad news and good news of justice to all persons, peoples and nations…until he leads just-nection to victory” (Mt 12:18,20). He calls his followers to join him on this uncommonly intrusive and narrowly whole relational path to be shepherds in his likeness and sentinels of his word. He calls us so that his integral relational purpose, process and outcome of just-nection unfolds to completion. As Simeon alerted us (Lk 2:34-35), the bad news is integral to Jesus’ gospel and is unavoidable for those who claim and proclaim the whole gospel. Moreover, the bad news should not be underestimated, and is consequential whenever it is. The fight against reductionism is at the core of Subject God’s relational response to the human condition, fighting against persons reduced and relationships fragmented from wholeness. This critical fight is the right basis for Jesus assertively cleaning out the gathering at God’s house and the just means of wielding his sword for uncommon peace (Mt 10:34-36). Those whose thinking, perception and action about sin are not centered on reductionism will fall into reduced ontology and function for their persons and thereby fall out of just-nection.

Jesus doesn’t recognize persons in reduced ontology and function as his true followers (Mt 7:21-23). Nor does he accept as his church a gathering (large or small) in reduced identity and function (as in Rev 2-3). These churches, persons and relationships comprise the relational orphans needing just-nection by relationally belonging in his church family. Therefore, to fulfill his relational purpose for justice and peace, Jesus vulnerably enacts the relational terms of God’s rule of law and its relational order by enforcing them on the variable Rules of Faith from tradition and on the adaptations having evolved from the status quo for their transformation (Mt 5:17-20).

Due to a weak view of sin and its adapted anthropology, the global church and its persons and relationships have not recognized adequately (or at all) this pervasive reality in our midst:

Reductionism has either common-ized our theology and practice by its simplification of how we think, see and act.

Or reductionism has simplified our theology and practice by its common-ization of how we think, see and act.

Without any tolerance for reductionism, Jesus (with the Spirit) challenges our theology and practice today, as he confronts who, what and how we are in everyday life (the righteousness in Mt 5:20)—always integrating the bad news and good news of his gospel. The correct theological doctrine is important but only in God’s relational language, which always gives priority to the primacy of relationship together in the Trinity’s likeness (just as Jesus prayed and critiqued the church in Ephesus). Ministry is necessary practice but must neither define the identity of who and what we are, nor determine the function of how we are (as Jesus critiqued the church in Sardis).

Jesus’ shepherds of his flock cannot be satisfied with the church as a mere gathering; nor can they claim to be in his likeness without the depth of relational involvement with and ongoing response to relational orphans for their just-nection. Congruently, Jesus’ sentinels of his word for all human life cannot settle for calling for justice without having just-nection, nor can they stop at working for peace without bringing wholeness. To be satisfied or to settle reflects the common’s influence shaping our persons and relationships. In his fight against this common-ization, Jesus pursued Peter and now pursues us:

“Do you love me with your relational involvement more than your engagement of the secondary?”

Then, let our relational response unfold by “follow me” and be distinguished by

He pursues us to be right, so that in our just-nection we will not be disablers of justice and enablers of injustice. Therefore, may the bad news of his gospel be whole-ly claimed and proclaimed by us in the primacy of relationship, with nothing less and no substitutes. Then, we will be relationally involved with him to “declare justice for all persons, peoples, tribes and nations without any distinctions…until he brings justice to victory.”

[1] I discuss Jesus’ post-ascension critique of churches in greater detail for the global church in The Global Church Engaging the Nature of Sin and the Human Condition: Reflecting, Reinforcing, Sustaining or Transforming (Global Church Study, 2016), 26-36. Online at http://www.4X12.org.