Ch 7 The Consecrated for Whole-ly Justice and Peace

In the most globally visible period of human history, we live in divisive, fragmented and broken contexts of everyday life. The challenge for all Christians is not how “good” we adapt to this human condition, but how well we change it. When we have the knowledge of what Jesus brings and the understanding of what he gives in his gospel, this urgent challenge shifts to accountability. The accountability for us is inescapable if we have claimed his gospel. At that point, our accountability focuses less on how do we change the human condition and more immediately on when do we change the existing human (our) condition evident at all levels of everyday life. That is, when do we (both individually and collectively) bring to everyday life the uncommon change Jesus brings, so that we can grow and mature the whole-ly justice and peace of his gospel?

Christians in the U.S., as Christians, should be the most marginalized segment of the population. Yet, in reality, we collectively are the most assimilated into the American way of life. Christians in other countries could be marginalized just for their religious difference from the dominant sector, but not necessarily for their identity (being) and function distinguished as Christians. What distinguishes Christians in any country is being in likeness to the whole-ly Trinity—that is, being whole and uncommon in their identity and function in the common contexts of everyday life.

Whenever and wherever we claim Jesus’ gospel, we are faced with the reality that his manifesto for discipleship (Sermon on the Mount, Mt 5-7) automatically becomes definitive for us; and his relational terms are irreducible and nonnegotiable. The pivotal verse in his manifesto was declared for his followers to distinguish the real from the virtual, which I paraphrase as follows:

“Unless the whole-integrity of who, what and how you are in your persons and relationships is not distinguished from the reductionists commonly associated with God—who define themselves by their outer-in distinctions—you do not represent my family and have not claimed my whole-ly gospel, thus you are unable to proclaim whole justice and bring justice to victory in uncommon peace as I do” (Mt 5:20).

From the beginning, the Word had always clarified and corrected Who is present and What is involved, whereby he ongoingly clarifies and corrects what and who are essential from creation through complete salvation. The sentinels of his family are responsible to declare the relational words (not mere teachings) from his mouth to all human life, in order to bring the turn-around change to the fragmentary heart of the human condition and its human order (Eze 33:7-8).

Jesus made conclusive for his followers that we are to fulfill our responsibility only on this basis: “As you Father sent me into the common’s world, so I have sent them into the common’s condition” (Jn 17:18). Therefore, we can only fulfill the responsibility of our reciprocating relational purpose by (1) being “not of the common just as I do not belong to the world” (Jn 17:14,16), and (2) “all being one…as we are one in the Trinity…that they may become whole-ly one” (teleioo, 17:21-23). No matter how seriously we take our responsibility of his calling and commission as his sentinels, we cannot fulfill this responsibility unless who is present in the world and what is involved in everyday life are integrally uncommon and whole—nothing less and no substitutes for whole-ly in the image and likeness of the Trinity.

Reflect on your God, and Who is present and What is involved in this song:

The Face of God[1]

Dt 5:4; Num 6:25-26; Ps 80:3; 2 Cor 4:6

1. The face of God has opened

the holy God be praised

the face of God is present

O whole of God be thanked

2. The face of God is involved

the grace of God be praised

the face of God interacts

O whole of God be thanked

3. The face of God still remains

the faithful God be praised

the face of God stays focused

O whole of God be thanked

4. The face of God gets affected

the love of God be praised

the face of God so forgives us

O whole of God be thanked

5. The face of God not common

the holy God be praised

the face of God not two-faced

O whole of God be thanked

6. The face of God, face of God

the whole and holy God is

the face of God, face of God

is the whole and holy God.

Amen, amen, amen!

Consecrated in the Trinity’s Image and Likeness

From creation through salvation, what is essential for human persons is to be created in, saved and transformed to the qualitative image and relational likeness of the Trinity (Gen 1:26-27; Rom 8:29; 2 Cor 3:18; Col 3:10). Since the beginning, human persons have had tension and conflict about God’s image and living in God’s likeness. Christians have had difficulty reconciling this truth in their theology with its reality for their practice. Yet, Jesus embodied Who was present and What was involved in the Trinity, and he enacted this good news in everyday life in order for the Trinity’s image and likeness to be the experiential reality distinguishing our ontology and function (Col 1:15; 2 Cor 4:4; Eph 4:24). This relational outcome emerges from our reciprocal relational involvement in “follow me” for the primacy of relationship together “where I am” (Jn 12:26). Anything less and any substitutes for this primacy render our practice to counter what Jesus brings, and contradict what he gives. For us, therefore, who is present and what is involved only have significance in everyday life when they are distinguished in the whole-ly Trinity’s image and likeness. Distinguished, however, not by an ideal or concept but whole-ly by the experiential reality of the qualitative image and relational likeness enacted by Jesus’ whole person in the Trinity, which vulnerably disclosed who, what and how he counts on all of us to be in his likeness (his “just as I” declarations).

How we live daily unavoidably reflects who is present and what is involved, and how real or virtual that is. Paying close attention to Jesus’ person and his face-to-face communication (not detached teachings) provides us with the clarification and correction needed for our persons and relationships to grow uncommon and mature whole, so that we will be consecrated just like Jesus and the Trinity. When we don’t listen vulnerably to the Word in relationship, we fall into a default mode that is subtly influenced by the common and reduced from the primary. One of the major consequences making evident falling into a default mode is burnout among church leaders and activists. This prominent condition (and variations related to it) pervading Christian contexts evidence how persons become preoccupied with the secondary at the expense of the primary—namely, immersed in an identity and function defined primarily by the work they do. In this common occupational hazard, both their persons and relationships suffer (notably as relational orphans) from the lack of fulfillment in their inherent human need, whereby their vested and privileged rights have been neglected since their image and likeness of the Trinity has not been embraced whole-ly in its primacy. This is the consequence whenever our theological anthropology is reduced and our view of sin doesn’t encompass reductionism.

When the LORD corrected his people, the consecrated were to “be holy” according to the relational terms by which “I sanctify you” (qadash, Lev 20:7-8). Qadash means to be set apart, to be holy or made holy in who, what and how they are, thus to be distinguished in their identity and function from the common and ordinary of human life. In other words, the consecrated were made uncommon by their uncommon God. Jesus extended this uncommon-izing relational process for his consecrated followers: “Father, sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth” (Jn 17:17). The traditional doctrine of sanctification has narrowed down the uncommon-izing relational process to becoming more perfect like Jesus, which has constrained persons from being whole. Yet, Jesus clarified this uncommon-izing process with the interrelationship between “the truth” and “your word.” Even more so, he corrected the limits of conventional sanctification by embodying the integral reality of God’s Word as the Truth. As the whole-ly Truth for the uncommon Way to the whole Life, “I sanctify myself so that they too may be truly sanctified” (17:19, NIV). That is to say, Jesus enacted the qualitative image and relational likeness of the whole-ly Trinity, so that our persons will be consecrated in his whole-ly image and likeness whereby we will be distinguished uncommon and whole “into the common contexts of the world, as the Father sent me into the world.”

If we follow Jesus’ person “where I am,” we engage the uncommon-izing relational process of our identity and function being transformed to and consecrated in the qualitative image and relational likeness that Jesus enacted embodying the Trinity in his whole-ly person. The relational outcome is for our person to be defined by the primary of the qualitative from inner out integrating the secondary quantitative outer aspects for constituting our whole person in the image of the trinitarian persons. Plus, and integrally, our whole persons function in the primacy of face-to-face relationship together, both equalized and intimate in the likeness of the whole-ly Trinity, whose ontology and function are irreducibly One and nonnegotiably uncommon.

The ontology of the Trinity embodied by Jesus, and the image of the Trinity’s ontology enacted by him, never emerge from Jesus’ person as an individual. His ontology was always constituted together with the Spirit (Lk 4:1,14,18) and the Father (Jn 10:30; 12:45; 14:10-11), so that the individual has no significance to the trinitarian persons. They are each whole persons integrated together as One, in the integral dynamic of whole relationship. The function of the Trinity embodied by Jesus, along with the Trinity’s ontology, and the likeness of the Trinity’s function enacted by him, also never emerge from Jesus’ person apart from his vulnerable involvement in the primacy of face-to-face relationship together. This ontology and function of the Trinity make the whole of who, what and how the Trinity is by nature uncommon and beyond the understanding of the common (e.g. Jn 10:30-39; 14:9-10). Perhaps this common thinking and perception underlie why the image of God is relegated to our theology without having much if any significance in our practice. Yet, “just as I” always declares a key matter for which we are responsible and thus accountable. Always likewise, Jesus’ consecrated followers are whole persons, whose primary identity is the qualitative image of the Trinity that is defined neither as an individual nor by any outer-in distinctions. The qualitative image of these whole persons are integrated together in the primacy of integral relationships both equalized and intimate, which constitutes their function in the relational likeness of the whole-ly Trinity.

Therefore, Jesus followers are distinguished whole-ly only with the following:

When they are sanctified by the qualitative image and relational likeness enacted by Jesus, which consecrates their person whole from the inner out to be their primary identity over any other secondary identity from outer in, and which integrates them as these whole persons vulnerably involved face to face in the primacy of reciprocal relationship together in wholeness over any other secondary matters in everyday life.

When the Trinity’s qualitative image and relational likeness are the experiential Truth and relational reality in our persons and our relationships, we (as persons together as one) will be distinguished whole-ly in the context of the common “so that the world may believe…may know the uncommon change I bring and the uncommon whole peace I give” (Jn 17:21-23).

So, what defines you in everyday life, and how does that determine how you function and how your relationships are?[2]

When Jesus declared to Peter at his footwashing “unless I wash you, you have no share with me,” Peter perceived Jesus’ action only in quantitative terms from outer in (Jn 13:8-9). This is a key interaction for Jesus’ consecrated followers, yet not to be set apart for serving but to be distinguished in the image and likeness enacted by Jesus. What Jesus enacted in this interaction was difficult for Peter to embrace because of its nature, which was clearly confronting for this magisterial shepherd of Jesus’ family. What was difficult for Peter to embrace that confronted him at his core?

First, by enacting the qualitative image of God, Jesus unmistakably distinguished that his person was defined from inner out by the primary terms of the qualitative, not from outer in by the secondary quantitative terms of his role as “Teacher and Lord” (v.13). Without his outer-in distinctions—and who among us can claim such superior distinctions?—Jesus vulnerably disclosed his whole person, the integrity of who, what and how he was functioning (his righteousness) with nothing less and no substitutes. Secondly, his whole person functioned without the veil of distinctions in order to be relationally involved in relationships face to face for the relational connection necessary to distinguish the relational likeness of the Trinity. Jesus enacted this primacy of face-to-face relationship together with the depth of his relational involvement from inner out, such that Peter was unable to embrace Jesus’ person since his own person functioned from outer in to make quantitative distinctions primary over the qualitative—implied in “you, my Teacher and Lord, shall never wash my feet.” The common function of Peter’s person exposed his shallow engagement of relationships with his veil, and thus Jesus confronted him with the reality “you have no depth of involvement to have relational connection with me.” This relational reality exists for all of us: when we keep our veil on, what we see are human distinctions rather than the whole person (both ours and others) in face-to-face relationship.

Peter essentially needed to change his theological anthropology and view of sin in order to see that who, what and how he was lacked the qualitative image and relational likeness enacted by Jesus, as vulnerably disclosed in this key interaction. Peter needed to be whole-ly consecrated (not simply “sanctified”) by embracing the uncommon change Jesus brings and the uncommon wholeness only Jesus gives, so that Peter would no longer counter and contradict Jesus.

When his whole-ly gospel is claimed instead of our gospel, Jesus’ shepherds and sentinels are consecrated in the qualitative image and relational likeness of the Trinity that Jesus’ person enacted for our transformation to nothing less and no substitutes—the uncommon-izing relational process which can never be overemphasized nor overestimated. If, however, we are not distinguished in everyday life by the Trinity’s image and likeness—namely, transposing the qualitative with the quantitative, and renegotiating the primacy of face-to-face relationships—we can only reflect a default mode, which reinforces and sustains anything less and any substitutes. Jesus allows for no latitude of variation (as in human diversity) in the identity and function of his shepherd and sentinels—as Peter discovered and had to confront in his own life. Paul distinguishes this transformation definitively only in persons “with unveiled faces” who reflect the Trinity’s image and likeness in their everyday life (2 Cor 3:18). The veil commonly reflects and shrouds our default mode; and Paul would not allow his own outer-in distinctions to define his person and determine his function (see 1 Cor 2:3-4; 2 Cor 10:10; 11:6; 12:7-10; Gal 4:13-14, cf. Phil 3:4-7). Like the unveiled face of Paul, in our unveiled face the whole-ly relational outcome is our reciprocal relational involvement face to face with the Trinity to proclaim his gospel of justice (not whole-less justice), in order to save all persons (not justice-less salvation) to bring their just-nection to victory in the uncommon wholeness (not common peace) of the Trinity’s new creation family.

Reflect on your practice of Communion and share in this song:

Whole-ly Communion[3]

Mt 9:10-13; Heb 10:19-22; 2 Cor 4:6

This song is composed to be sung during Communion.

Heartfelt and heart-filled

1. Here at your table

you call us from afar

You, O Jesus, to you

2. Here behind the curtain

we join you, old to new

You, O Jesus, in you

3. Now without the veil

we see God, Face to face

You, O Jesus, with you

4. In your very presence

whole of God, O, whole of God

Father, Son and Spirit

Bridge:

Here at your table—

Here behind the curtain—

Now without the veil—

Final verse:

In your very presence

whole of God, O—whole of God

Father, Son and Spirit!

The Simplification of Uncompromising Change

Persons sanctified by the Trinity are consecrated in the Trinity’s qualitative image and relational likeness. This change unfolds with a growing depth of qualitative sensitivity and relational awareness accordingly. A lack or loss of qualitative sensitivity and relational awareness evidence when our everyday life is not set apart to reflect the Trinity. Without being set apart in these terms, then who is present and what is involved reflect merely a reduced salvation from a revised gospel. A truncated soteriology reflects two limits defining our theology, which create constraints for our practice:

1. Reduced salvation is limited only to being saved from sin that doesn’t encompass reductionism, thus limits our salvation to a change (wrongly assumed to be transformation) without being saved to the change Jesus brings for the wholeness he gives. If we were saved to this wholeness, then we would have to be saved from reductionism. The two cannot coexist in our theology and practice.

2. The first limit evolves into a second limit, which composes a justice-less salvation that limits what we claim and proclaim, whereby we are constrained to the limits of a whole-less peace.

When who, what and how we are reflect the limits of justice-less salvation and the constraints of whole-less peace, our persons and relationships counter the uncommon change Jesus brings, and contradicts the uncommon peace he gives.

Transformation is a misleading assumption that Christians frequently make about salvation. Related, many Christians calling for justice and working for peace are misguided to assume that their theology and practice are not composed by whole-less justice and peace. Change is the common issue here that calls into question what is the underlying change claimed and proclaimed.

The issue of change emerges distinctly from the gospel. If that change doesn’t encompass the human condition and get to the heart of human life, what significance does that gospel have? If that gospel encompasses this change but is not reflected in those who claim or proclaim it, what significance does that change have? Certainly, then, this significance revolves around the disjuncture between our gospel and his gospel, and the change that emerges from it. This disjuncture in our theology underlies the disjuncture in our practice between the wide gate-road and the narrow gate-road, which Jesus clarified to distinguish his difficult relational path from other easier ways (Mt 7:13-14). Following his person is more complex, involving complex subjects, while easier ways are simplified to render persons to simple objects—whom Jesus corrected as those he doesn’t know (7:21-23).

The change Jesus brings is difficult and never easy. Yet, when our view of sin doesn’t encompass reductionism or ongoingly fight against it, the counter-workings of reductionism exerts its subtle process of simplification on our identity and function, on the gospel and its outcome. Hence, the simplification of change in our persons, churches, and other persons and contexts of human life neither gets to the depth of their heart nor down to the fragmentary heart of their human condition. This faces us with an unavoidable reality of his gospel: If we do not speak out for the uncommon turn-around change Jesus brings, we are accountable for our complicity in their injustice (as in Eze 33:7-8).

The subtle simplifying of change becomes more evident when we examine the function of our theological anthropology. Consider this:

When our identity is measured by what we do and have, there is unspoken pressure to produce, progress, have achievements, and succeed in the work we do. The subtle influence of such pressure can cause strain and stress when we don’t demonstrate progress, achievement or success—intensified in its persistent comparative process of measurement. Under such conditions, in situations or circumstances where change is difficult to accomplish and its prospect may not be on the horizon, we become susceptible to simplifying change for easier or quicker results—results critical also to our identity.[4]

Our rationale for simplifying change may be that ‘any change is better than no change’, and understandably so given the difficulty. But, our underlying motivation for easier and quicker results often involves having something to show for our efforts that would affirm our identity and not be rendered less in the comparative process—perhaps be considered “the greatest” as Jesus’ early disciples pursued.

Apply the simplification of change to the areas of your work. Certainly bringing change for justice and peace is not easy. Of greater priority, bringing change to our persons and churches is also difficult, to say the least. With the level of complexity involved for significant change, on what basis could you declare that you would not choose an easier alternative to change? Moreover, what would be the cost for you to make that choice, or what do you think making your decision would be at the expense of?

This pivotal issue intensifies the disjuncture between the theological anthropology composing our gospel and his gospel. Either our persons and relationships undergo simpler change or they turn around on the basis of difficult change, but the latter can neither be mistaken for nor conflated with the former. The difficult change Jesus brings is only redemptive change, the transformation of the old to the new. Therefore, his change for transformation is uncompromising, and thus by its nature is uncommon.

No matter who the persons and what the relationships are, or what area and level of everyday life, nothing less and no substitutes for his uncommon change impacts the heart of human life and turns around its fragmentary human condition and order. Any compromise of this uncommon change exchanges it with common change, which evolves from the simplifying influence of reductionism. This includes the change associated with the common good, which compromises the uncommon change Jesus brings for only the uncommon good. Paul exposed the subtle workings of common change (metaschematizo, 2 Cor 11:13-15) and made it imperative not to resort to it (syschematizo) in place of the uncompromising uncommon change (metamorphoo, Rom 12:1-2). As difficult as this change could be to experience in everyday life, this is the only change that Jesus brings to declare justice, and the only relational outcome that he gives to bring just-nection to victory (Eph 2:14-22; 4:14-24).

The whole-ly new (contrary to a “new” normal) rises with the Trinity, and this consecration always counters any common change and contradicts anything less and any substitutes in our theology and practice.

Reflect on your person and join in this song:

‘Singing’ the New Song^{^[5]}

Sing the new song to the Lord

Sing the new song to our Lord

(Joyfully) —the veil is gone

the veil is gone

[embrace the whole of God] Note: [ ]s hummed (or the like); no words aloud, no instruments played

Sing the new song to the Lord

Sing the new song to our Lord

—you are holy

you are whole

—we’re uncommon

we are whole

[embrace the whole of God]

Sing the new song to the Lord

Sing the new song to our Lord

(Passionately) —you compose life

in your key

—life together

intimately

—no veil present

distance gone

[embrace the whole of God]

Sing the new life with the Lord

Sing the new life with our Lord

—you are present

and involved

—we be present

now involved

[embrace the whole of God]

Sing this new song to you Lord

Sing this new life with you Lord

(Joyfully) —the veil is gone

the veil is gone

[embrace the whole of God]

Progressive, Non-progressive, or Radical

Many may perceive the consecrated followers of Jesus as non-progressive, embodying tradition and following that agenda. Others may see those proclaiming justice as progressive, enacting an agenda that may or may not be contrary to the gospel. In a postmodern and post-Christian climate, a growing number may think of both groupings as without significance, perhaps even as prolonging the status quo with no significant change. Christian non-progressives and progressives have warranted the ‘insignificant’ label in how they are seen and thought of, because their witness has not been substantive sufficiently to embrace all of human life and encompass the human condition. In other words, there isn’t anything notably different about them that distinguishes their practice from others having the same concerns, and thus for others to take an interest in their practice.

At his ascension, Jesus communicated to his shepherds and sentinels that “you will be my witnesses…to the ends of the earth”—that is, “when the Holy Spirit’s person is relationally involved with you” (Acts 1:8). His witness (martys) is more than a common witness who has information or knowledge to confirm something. His witnesses possess the experiential Truth and relational reality of his face-to-face relational involvement with them in the primacy of relationship together that constitutes their just-nection. If this witness is limited to knowledge and constrained to referential information, such a witness has lost its substantive relational significance. To prevent that relational loss, the Spirit’s person is present and involved in reciprocal relationship, in order to maintain, deepen and consummate the relational connection of Jesus’ witnesses to have the substantive significance to be distinguished in all parts of the world, at all levels of human life.

Essentially, non-progressives proclaiming a justice-less salvation become shepherds of inequality and enablers of injustice. Progressives proclaiming a premature justice and immature peace (whole-less justice and peace) as sentinels have fallen into default love, which may address permissible rights but not the vested and privileged rights necessary for just-nection and the fulfillment of inherent human needs. The being-making disciples equation limits the results of both groupings to nothing more. That brings us back to who, what and how Jesus’ consecrated are.

Creation, the human condition, his gospel and salvation converge for just one and only one outcome. When they are fully understood, they integrate into the whole constituted by the Trinity. This integral picture of God’s whole is unmistakably distinguished from the common, in order to compose unequivocally without comparison the uncommon wholeness of all human life and its human order in the whole-ly Trinity’s image and likeness. This radical relational dynamic gets to the roots of life to embrace the heart of human life and encompass the fragmentary heart of the human condition. Only that which is radical gets to these vital roots. Yet, because of its nature, those who are radical can only be uncommon, and this is problematic for most Christians who follow an easier path than Jesus’ intrusive relational path. Since nothing less and no substitutes compose the Word proclaiming the good news for human life and its order, the identity and function of his shepherds and sentinels can only be distinguished by nothing less and no substitutes. The relational terms of his gospel are irreducible and nonnegotiable.

Therefore, the essential integrity of this transforming new life and order is neither progressive nor non-progressive; rather it emerges only and unfolds just as uniquely radical. And it grows and matures distinguished by the everyday life and practice of his consecrated in the Trinity’s image and likeness—the consecrated for whole-ly justice and peace.

Claim the experiential Truth and relational reality in the following song:

The Whole-ly Trinity[6]

Note: underlined words to be chanted, rapped, shouted, or any other style, in this rhythm but not sung; tempo increases after Bridge 1, then slows down after verse 6 to the end.

Praise God whole and uncommon

Father, Son and Spirit,

Praise God whole and uncommon

Father, Son and Spirit,

together as One

You are, are, are

the whole-ly Trinity.

Praise You Father, Son, Spirit,

Your persons together

Praise You Father, Son, Spirit,

Your persons together

whole and uncommon

You are, are, are

the whole-ly Trinity.

Bridge 1:

O, O, O, O praise! O, O, O, O praise!

Glory be Father, Son, Spirit,

all present together,

yes, present together

yes, present together,

whole persons as One

You are, are, are

the whole-ly Trinity.

Thank You Father, Son, Spirit,

all involved together,

yes, involved together,

in relationships

with us, You are

the whole-ly Trinity.

Bridge 2:

O, O, O, O praise! O, O, O, O thank!

O yes, O yes, O yes, O yes!

Praise You whole-ly Trinity,

all present and involved, O

Praise You whole-y Trinity,

all present and involved,

Your persons together

whole relationship,

You’re whole and uncommon.

Thank You whole-ly Trinity,

distinguished above all, O

Thank You whole-ly Trinity,

distinguished above all,

yet here for us all

to make us whole

and uncommon like You.

Bridge 3:

So, yes, now yes, O yes!

Praise O thank the Trinity

with our whole and uncommon, Yes,

Praise O thank the Trinity

with our whole and uncommon:

Father, Son, Spirit

You are, are, are

the whole-ly Trinity,

You are, are, are

the whole-ly Trinity,

the whole-ly Trinity.

The Spirit of New Life Together

Non-progressive churches in the West have fallen on hard times, though white evangelicals in the U.S. have become more tenacious in their identity. Progressive churches and ministries also struggle both to stay relevant in the West and to have an identity considered to be significant for the common good. And with a growing postcolonial climate, both variations appear to have little if any impact in the global South. Leading the way to changing the make-up of the Christian population, the Spirit-focused charismatics and Pentecostals in the global South have renewed church growth to claim the majority of Christians in the world. How significant this growth is beyond a quantitative measure remains to be seen. But, like Christians everywhere, the significance of their witness will be a measure of how the Spirit is distinguished in both their theology and practice.[7]

As the distinguishing measure for his followers, Jesus declared to them face to face that “I will not let you live as relational orphans” (Jn 14:18). The experiential truth and relational reality of his declaration emerge with the presence of the Spirit’s person, who is relationally involved in reciprocal relationship together as Jesus’ relational replacement (Jn 14:16-17; 15:26-27; 16:7-15). The Spirit as person has been the neglected or forgotten person in the Trinity, even by charismatics and Pentecostals who reduce his person to merely his power, and limit his presence and involvement to this related activity. Some may consider the latter practice better than neglecting or forgetting the Spirit, but we have to ask if this is sufficient to distinguish Who is present and What is involved. As his relational replacement, Jesus would declare a resounding “No! That’s not who and what replaces my embodied person.” Paul would echo Jesus and declare that the Spirit’s person would be grieved by the loss of primacy in reciprocal relationship together (Eph 4:30; Rom 8:15-16).

Embrace the Word and Paul’s words in their relational language (not referential) expressed in this song:

The Spirit of the Word[8]

Taken from Jn 14:15-27; 16:13-15; 17:20-23; Gal 4:6; Eph 2:22; Nu 6:24-26

1. ‘I will not leave you as orphans’

‘I do not leave you apart’

‘The Father gives you the Spirit

the Father gives you the Spirit

in my name, in my name.’

Chorus:

‘The Spirit lives with you’

‘We make our home with you’

dwelling whole as family

“Abba Father, Abba Father”

2. ‘I’ve sent you the Spirit of truth’

‘I’ve left you the Spirit of Truth’

‘You know him within you’

‘He guides you and tells you

what is mine, what is mine.’

3. ‘My peace I leave you, my family

My peace I give you, be whole!’

‘The Lord shines his face on you,

the Lord turns his face to you

and makes you whole, makes you whole.’

4. The whole of God with us has shared

the whole of God with us is present

‘that they may be one as we,

that they may be one as we’

‘I in them, you in me.’

End: O my Father, O my Father!

The Spirit must not be reduced in his person and, equally important, must not be fragmented from his oneness with the other trinitarian persons as the Trinity. By extending what Jesus brought and gave, the Spirit is the ongoing functional key for the irreplaceable relational connection required for the relational reality of our just-nection with the Trinity and in the Trinity’s image and likeness. Through the presence and involvement of the Spirit’s person, we are consecrated (2 Thes 2:13) to be the intimate dwelling of the Trinity as family together (Eph 2:22; Jn 14:23, cf. 1 Cor 3:16). This new life together, however, does not emerge, grow and mature without the relational work (not limited or constrained to power) of the Spirit. Yet, in contrast to how the Spirit’s power is often misperceived, the Spirit (along with the other trinitarian persons) doesn’t function in unilateral relationship but only in reciprocal relationship according to the Trinity’s relational terms (just as Jesus declared, Jn 14:15-21). Therefore, when we are not ongoingly relationally involved with the Spirit in this primacy of face-to-face relationship without the veil, we lack the relational connection with the Trinity for the relational reality of our just-nection in the Trinity’s family. The relational consequence is to render us to relational orphans, who are disabled in justice-less salvation and unable to experience the uncommon peace Jesus gives (14:26-27)—leaving them only able to compose their witness in a default mode. In this relational condition, the most that churches can claim, expect, proclaim and hope for is whole-less justice and peace—notably functioning in complicity with benign injustice while common-izing peace.

The prevailing witness today of the church and its persons and relationships evidences this relational condition lacking the Spirit’s person. With the human condition pervading our midst (both within and surrounding the church), this has left many in varying degrees of “troubled hearts and inwardly afraid”—as Jesus anticipated from common peace (Jn 14:27). For those advocating for justice and peace, it is stressful, frustrating, angering, disheartening and even despairing to work for change while in this condition—leaving such well-intentioned workers constrained to their default mode and thus laboring as relational orphans without relationally belonging to and having the essential support of family together as in the Trinity. Nevertheless, Jesus’ shepherds and sentinels have the clear alternative to be consecrated by the Spirit in new life together as the Trinity’s family, the relational involvement of which will get to the heart of their everyday life for the just-nection they can now claim as their relational reality no matter what is happening around them. In this growing and maturing relational outcome, they will be distinguished unmistakably to proclaim the good news for the fragmentary heart of the human condition and its broken order; and in the significance of their new life together with the Spirit, they will unequivocally counter those who enable injustice and contradict those who disable justice—including those serving the common good by working merely for conventional change with premature justice and immature peace.

For this relational outcome to grow and mature, however, the diversity of the global church (i.e. its fragmentation) will have to be made whole and thus consecrated uncommon by the Spirit. That is to say, the fragmentary global church needs to be consecrated whole-ly by the Spirit beyond charismaticism and Pentecostalism, in order for the heart of its identity to be in the qualitative image and the depth of its function to be in the relational likeness of the Trinity. Paul made the uncommon peace Jesus gives through the Spirit imperative as the church’s sole determinant for its wholeness as one family, by which this whole-ly family will nurture and support all its members as persons without distinctions in the primacy of relationship together (Col 3:10-11,15-16).

We must not underestimate the inherent human need for the support system of the Trinity’s family, nor can we overestimate this whole-ly family’s support for the fulfillment of each of our inherent need.[9] In reciprocal relationship with the Spirit, our vested and privileged rights are secured to be able to fight together against reductionism at all levels of the human condition and bring justice to victory (as in Eph 6:10-18). And Paul was neither hesitant nor apologetic to include his person in ongoing need of the church family’s support, in order for him to vulnerably (parresia) proclaim the uncommon turn-around change Jesus brings and the uncommon peace Jesus gives (6:19-20).

When the global church distinguishes the Spirit’s person in inseparable oneness as the Trinity, it then can be consecrated whole-ly to distinguish its identity in the qualitative image and its function in the relational likeness of the whole-ly Trinity. As the global church is distinguished whole-ly, it can propagate the whole-ly culture of Jesus’ gospel (not our variations) for all its churches (1) to grow their persons as subjects in the turn-around change Jesus brings, and (2) to mature their relationships as equalized and intimate in the uncommon wholeness he gives. This irreducible and nonnegotiable gospel culture centers on the qualitative as being primary over the quantitative and on the primacy of face-to-face relationship together, whereby it cultivates the depth of qualitative sensitivity and relational awareness that reflect the Trinity’s qualitative image and relational likeness—all in support of persons in their vested and privileged rights to have their inherent needs fulfilled. With the outworking of this whole-ly culture, the consecrated together as one are distinguished whole-ly in the world with the significance to declare whole-ly justice and peace. Accordingly, the relational outcome from the consecrated’s declaration will emerge (both in the present already and the future not yet) with the reciprocal relational work of the Spirit, in oneness together as the Trinity.

In this relational purpose and for that relational outcome, Paul implores us: “Pray in relationship with the Spirit at all times in every expression of prayer and heartfelt supplication. To that end keep alert and always persevere in supplication for all the consecrated” (Eph 6:18).

Pursue, anticipate, and celebrate this relational reality summarized in this song:

The Global Church Celebrating[10]

1. You God are whole and uncommon,

Distinguished beyond all the common,

None to compare, none to compare

You God are whole and uncommon.

2. Your Word is whole and uncommon,

Distinguished from all in the world,

Here to transform, here to make whole

Your peace is whole and uncommon.

Chorus 1:

Praise— the whole and uncommon (“Praise” is shouted)

God beyond all that is common,

You have transformed, you make us whole (shout freely with beat)

Your family whole and uncommon.

3. We are not parts of the common

Fragmented apart from God’s whole,

We are transformed, we are made whole

Peace together whole and uncommon.

4. We are God’s whole and uncommon

Distinguished family from the common,

No longer old, raised in the new

Now together like the Trinity.

Chorus 2:

Praise— Father, Son and Spirit, (“Praise” is shouted)

Thank you for family together,

You equalized, you reconciled (shout freely with beat)

All persons, peoples and nations.

5. We shout with joy in our hearts,

Clapping, dancing inside to out,

No longer apart, no more orphans

God’s family whole and equal.

6. We sing the new song from within,

Proclaiming joy to all the world,

Here is your hope, here is your peace

Wholeness together beyond common

Chorus 2:

Praise— Father, Son and Spirit, (“Praise” is shouted)

Thank you for family together,

You equalized, you reconciled (shout freely with beat)

All persons, peoples and nations.

[everyone shouting, clapping, dancing to the Trinity]

Yes! Yes!! Yes!!! (shouted, and repeat as desired)

All persons, peoples and nations!

[2] Also, consider how many worship songs refer to God in the third person rather than the second person. What is the level of face-to-face involvement when we address God using the third person, or address any other person by being indirect?

[4] Like social change, the way many persons tend to deal with climate change is typically based on how human brains are wired. That is, the brain has difficulty with complex issues that are more future and thus puts more emphasis on the tangible present; this reflects how the majority address climate change with easier alternatives. See David G. Victor, Nick Obradovich and Dillon Amaya, “Why our brains make it hard to grapple with global warming,” OP-ED, Los Angeles Times, 9/17/2017.

[7] Esther E. Acolatse works to integrate the theological task of the global South and North for their church practice to better distinguish the Spirit according to Scripture. See her discussion relevant for the global church in today’s world, Powers, Principalities, and the Spirit: Biblical Realism in Africa and the West (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018).

[9] James Davison Hunter discusses the Christian community’s need for what Peter Berger calls “plausibility structures,” the stable support base provided by the church for its members during times of instability. See To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 200ff.