Ch 2 Humanity Emerges, Human Condition Evolves

The Lord saw that the sin of humankind was great in the global community.

The creation of humanity was the unilateral work of Creator God. Humanity’s development has been the integral reciprocal effort of both God and humans. The human condition evolved from the unilateral actions of humans, whose collective acts caused relational consequences with God that “grieved him to his heart” (Gen 6:6). The relational nature and process inherent to humanity’s emergence as well as to the human condition’s evolution are at the heart of who emerges and what evolves. Global Christianity needs to understand this relational nature and process, or else the who and what become less distinct and thus readily ambiguous to either misrepresent or mistake one for the other.

The current COVID-19 pandemic is a useful narrative to help us initially examine some of the issues involved in order to gain needed understanding. The global response to the pandemic, on the one hand, reveals the humanity that emerged at creation, while, on the other hand, it exposes the human condition further evolving. Thankfully, many persons have taken loving action to care for others during this pandemic, and their responses (however measured) reveal both their humanity and the others’ perceived humanity. Sadly, the divisive actions from many, including Christians and churches, to the pandemic exposes their self-oriented concerns and interests that simply reflect, reinforce or even sustain the human condition. These narratives help make personal the issues involved, from which humanity emerges and the human condition evolves.

We need to examine closely (and still personally) the origins of humanity’s emergence and the evolution of the human condition; and we need to more fully understand the relational nature and process of each in order to examine the who and the what operating in our theology and practice.

For many Christians, the typical scenario taken from the creation narrative is that God created humans as male and female, and that Adam and Eve married to start the human family. From these humans and their family emerged humanity, without much further detail ascribed to humanity that has significance for humanity’s identity (or ontology) and function. Such a lens of Christian interpretation has rendered God’s creation to limits and constraints, the myopic prevalence of which has opened the door for human diversity to define humanity relative to its diverse contexts. These diverse views make the who of humanity emerging problematic for each particular context to apply to its constituents. Moreover, such views are consequential for the global community to experience being together as a unified humanity.

The creation narrative (Gen 1-2) can be viewed as history or as allegory, but either view does not change what is seen or alter who emerged. God did not just create humans but persons. This who that created persons are is contingent integrally on both what and how persons are as God created. The essential identity (ontology) of who persons are is constituted in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:26-27), which do not distinguish persons just by having God’s trademark stamped on them. Persons are essential in their created identity when their what and how function integrally in the image and likeness of God. Yet, this identity and function are irreducible and nonnegotiable for any person to be and enact. Therefore, in spite of persons created in their diversity, for example, as female and male, the identity and function of persons emerge as created only when their who, what and how are enacted with nothing less and no substitutes for God’s image and likeness. Likewise, humanity emerged as these persons emerged collectively in relationship together. Thus, humanity emerged in creation, not in evolution, with no other constitution.

Certainly, then, the identity of both persons and humanity depends on their created function, and this integral constitution cannot evolve with adaptation. Without this identity and function, any use of the term humanity becomes only a label lacking viability. This, of course, is the default mode for humanity; and many will still argue on behalf of such humanity, yet merely fall into sophism.

The creation narrative is emphatic that God’s image and likeness cannot be rendered to a trademark, nor be relegated to a brand merely to affirm the person and humanity. First of all, God’s creative action was decisive but that didn’t by necessity preclude the evolutionary process in the biological formation of the human body. Yet, this points to the limits and constraints that subtly, inadvertently or intentionally get imposed on creation.

We cannot limit the dynamic process of creation, either by the limits of our epistemic field or by the constraints of a biased hermeneutic lens, which applies to both science and theology in the realms of physics and metaphysics. In the creation narrative, the person is distinguished by the direct creative action of the Creator and not indirectly through an evolutionary process that strains for continuity and lacks significant purpose and meaning. At a specified, yet unknown, point in the creation process, the Creator explicitly acted on the developed physical body (the quantitative outer) to constitute the innermost (“breath of life,” neshamah hay) with the qualitative inner (“living being,” nephesh, Gen 2:7). The relational outcome was the whole person from inner out (the inseparably integrated qualitative and quantitative) distinguished irreducibly in the image and likeness of the Creator (Gen 1:26-27).

The qualitative inner of nephesh is problematic for the person in either of two ways. Either nephesh (Gen 1:30) is reduced when primacy is given to the quantitative and thus to the outer in; this appears to be the nephesh signified by supervenience in nonreductive physicality that is linked to large brain development and function.[1] All animals have nephesh but without the qualitative inner that distinguishes only the person (Gen 1:30). Or, nephesh is problematic when it is fragmented from the body, for example, as the soul, the substance of which does not distinguish the whole person even though it identifies the qualitative uniqueness of humans. The referential language that typically composes the soul does not get to the depth of the qualitative inner of the person in God’s context (cf. Job in Job 10:1; 27:2), because the inner was constituted by God in relational terms for whole ontology and function. The ancient poet even refers to nephesh as soul but further illuminates qereb as “all that is within me” (Ps 103:1), as “all my innermost being” (NIV) to signify the center, interior, the heart of a person’s whole being (cf. human ruah and qereb in Zec 12:1). This distinction gets us to the integral depth of the qualitative inner that rendering nephesh as soul does not. The reduction or fragmentation of nephesh is critical to whether the person in God’s context is whole-ly distinguished or merely referenced in some uniqueness.

The qualitative inner of the person can be considered as the inner person. This identity implies an outer person, which certainly would employ a dualism if inner and outer are perceived as separate substances as in some frameworks of Greek philosophy (material and immaterial, physical and spiritual). In Hebrew thinking, the inner (center) and outer (peripheral) aspects of the person function together dynamically to define the whole person and to constitute the integral person’s whole ontology and function (cf. Rom 2:28-29). One functional aspect would not be seen apart from the other, nor would either be neglected, at least in theory; but this was problematic throughout Israel’s history as the covenant people in God’s context (e.g. Dt 10:16; Isa 29:13).

In Hebrew terminology of the OT, the nephesh that God implanted of the whole of God into the human person is signified in ongoing function by the heart (leb). The function of the qualitative heart is critical for the whole person and holding together the person in the innermost. The biblical proverbs speak of the heart in the following terms:

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

Without the function of the heart, the whole person from inner out created by God is reduced to function from outer in, thus distant or separated from the heart. This oft-subtle functional condition was ongoingly critiqued by God and responded to for the inner-out change necessary to be whole (e.g. Gen 6:5-6; Dt 10:16; 30:6; 1 Sam 16:7; Isa 29:13; Jer 12:2; Eze 11:19; 18:31; 33:31; Joel 2:12-13). Later in God’s strategic disclosure, Jesus vulnerably made unmistakable that the openness of the heart (“in spirit and truth”) is what the Father requires in reciprocal relationship together (Jn 4:23-24).

In spite of what constitutes the ontology of the human person, the whole person from inner out distinguished at creation was still insufficient to constitute humanity. A dimension still lacked that God completed in the creation narrative to make integrally functional the image and likeness of God. When God acknowledged “It is not good that the human person should be alone” (Gen 2:18), he constituted the relational nature and process that distinguishes all the diverse persons of humanity in God’s image and likeness.

“Good” (tob) can be situational, a moral condition, about happiness or being righteous; compare how good is perceived from human observation (Gen 3:6). When attached to “to be alone,” “not good” can easily be interpreted with all of the above, perhaps with difficulty about being righteous. Yet, in this creation context the Creator constituted the created order, whose design, meaning and purpose are both definitive and conclusive for the narrative of human being and being human, that is, for all humanity. Though the creation narrative is usually rendered “to be alone,” the Hebrew term (bad) can also be rendered “to be apart.” The latter rendering composes a deeper sense of relationship and not being connected to someone else—that is, deeper than merely an individual having someone to associate with. This nuance is significant to pay attention to because it takes the human narrative beyond situations and deeper than the heterosexual relations of marriage. “To be apart” is not just a situational condition but most definitively a relational condition distinguished only by the primacy of the created order. In the human narrative, a person may be alone in a situation but indeed also feel lonely (pointing to consciousness of one’s person) in the company of others, at church, even in a family or marriage because of relational distance, that is, “being apart,” which the Creator defines as “not good.”

In the design, meaning and purpose of the created order, humanity’s narrative is composed conjointly, integrally and irreducibly as follows:

1. For human being “to be part” of the interrelated structural condition and contextual process with the Creator.

2. For the function of being human “to be part” of the relationship together necessary to be whole as constituted by and thus in the whole ontology and function of their Creator.

“Good” (tob), then, in the creation context is only about being righteous—not about a moral condition but the function of an ontological condition. Thus, good signifies the Creator’s whole ontology and function, which constitutes the righteousness of God (the whole of who, what and how God is) further and deeper than just moral perfection.

In the creation narrative, the human male and female came before each other “naked and were not ashamed” (Gen 2:25). Well, what’s so significant about this? From an evolutionary biology context animals have done this for millions of years; and such a natural outcome would be expected for Homo sapiens, so “what else is new,” that is, unique emerging? Well, nothing significant is if we remain within the limits of the physicalist’s composition of the human narrative that explains human changes from evolutionary adaptation. The reality, however, emerging along with and inseparable from the physical context cannot be ignored. Naked, yes, but not simply without any outer clothes, as the Hebrew term (‘arom) denotes. A physicalist-materialist’s lens pays attention to human being from outer in and likely limits this male and female coming together to natural sex without shame. What such a lens (including some non-materialists and dualists) overlooks or even ignores is human being from inner out and the presence, for example, of human masks worn both to shield the whole person’s human being and to prevent being human from the depth level of connection necessary to distinguish their wholeness in relationship together. Contrary to such an opaque human identity, the innermost of human being is indispensable and irreplaceable to distinguish the person and persons together whole-ly from inner out.

For this male and female to be naked and without shame involved a composition of humanity’s narrative beyond the fragmenting terms of the body and marital sex between husband and wife. The Hebrew term for shame (bosh) involves confusion, disappointment, embarrassment or even dismay when things do not turn out as expected. What did they expect and what was their experience? Think about this male and female meeting on these terms for the first time and examining each other from the outer in. Obviously, our lens for beauty, femininity as well as masculinity shaped by culture would occupy our thoughts; likewise, perhaps, the competitive and survival needs from evolution could have shaped their lens. On what basis would there be no shame, confusion, disappointment, embarrassment or dismay?

If what they saw of themselves was all there was and all they would get, it would not be difficult to imagine such feelings rising. In deeper yet interrelated function, however, the lens of this male and female was not constrained to the outer in, and thus was not even limited to gender. Their connection emerged from the deep person-consciousness of human being from the inner out, the innermost of which can neither be adequately explained in physical terms nor even be sufficiently distinguished on the spiritual level. What we need to pay close attention to is the emergence of this human consciousness to compose the integral narrative for humanity’s whole of human being and being human. Most notably, the process of person-consciousness emerged to present the whole of human being without any masks or barriers (e.g. even the distinction of gender) in order to be involved with each other at the depth level necessary to distinguish their being human in created humanity. In other words, the context of person-consciousness composes humanity’s narrative in ‘naked and without shame’—the whole ontology and function necessary to distinguish the human person of all humanity.

Therefore, the persons God created from inner out connect in relationships without shame and disappointment only on the basis of inner out also. This essential relational process constitutes the relational involvement of intimacy: persons who make their hearts vulnerable to each other, whereby they come together in relationship in the primary involvement of inner out, without the limits and constraints from outer in. When relationships are engaged with intimacy, then persons experience the relational reality of no longer “to be apart.” What is “not good,” however, is when adaptations in relationship together redefine intimacy, which is what evolves in human diversity. Consider how you define intimacy in your surrounding context, and where and when you experience intimacy as a relational reality. Inseparably related to the issue of intimacy, examine further how shame is perceived in diverse cultures, and on what basis satisfaction is fulfilled in those contexts.

The ontology (or identity) and function of persons cannot diminish their created relational nature and function, or else they will relinquish their created humanity that is “not good to be apart.” The global community needs to recognize the relational mode of when and where humanity emerges. This recognition is problematic unless its diversity knows how humanity emerges in the created relational process of intimacy. All Christians and churches in global Christianity are accountable for the created how of the Creator in their persons and relationships. With this accounting, they will distinguish in their identity and function the relational reality of “not good to be apart,” whereby they will be responsible for embodying how in their surrounding diversity for humanity to emerge as the existential reality for all creation.

Until Christians and churches account for their created roots and fulfill their created responsibility in, by and with the image and likeness of God, their persons and relationships will strain for their created humanity. And rather than the who of humanity

emerging as God created irreducibly and nonnegotiably, the what of the human condition evolves. This becomes evident when the roots for Christians remains primarily centered on their surrounding culture and/or their family-tribal heritage.

This summary context from the beginning composes the essential narrative for humanity with the ontology and function of human being and being human: For human beings, who are distinguished as persons, “to be apart is not ‘being who, what and how they are in their whole ontology and function that is constituted in the very likeness of the Creator’.” In human breakdowns, “To be apart” signifies the human condition that prevails in the human narrative evolving from the creation narrative—an adapted (or conflated) narrative counter to created humanity. This pivotal condition must be accounted for in our deliberation of human being, and it is also critical to account for in the human consciousness we use, in the methodology we employ and in the epistemic field we engage during the course of our function of being human.

In human consciousness (both self-consciousness and person-consciousness) no human (and few animals) wants “to be apart”, that is, assuming we don’t ignore it and pay attention. Yet, the matter of “to be apart” includes anything less and any substitutes of the whole distinguished in God’s being and created by God in human being. This raises the question of how definitive and conclusive is this whole for human being and being human; and how can this whole be distinguished from any human shaping or construction? These are urgent questions needing to be addressed for qualifying the complete context from the beginning—which includes the primordial garden and its pivotal dynamic—that is requisite to compose humanity’s narrative of human beings in wholeness. If nothing less and no substitutes but this whole has no basis of significance, then anything less and any substitutes will be sufficient in our deliberation, even in the absence of mutual agreement (any level of consensus) or personal satisfaction.

In the cultural contexts of human diversity, what “ought to be” in daily life and function has been defined and determined in such diverse ways such that it can be confusing, conflicting or convincing for Christian practice. When diverse influences cause Christian practice to adapt, what evolves is in contrast to or conflict with the who, what and how created by God is essential to emerge. This pivotal dynamic originated in the primordial garden (Gen 3:1-13), which must be revisited to understand the what that evolved to compose the human condition.

The typical Christian account of the events in the primordial garden is that Adam and Eve disobeyed God’s command not to eat the fruit of a specific tree, which is the origin of sin that became the inherent condition for all humans. From this lens of original sin, the history of the human condition has been observed within its limits and constraints to redact that history, and thus to obscure the evolution of the human condition. This Christian account effectively renders Christians’ own condition to a theological fog, which has simply overshadowed the evolving adaptations in Christian practice. When the what from the primordial garden is understood without this biased lens, recognizing many of these adaptations in Christian practice will help illuminate their participation in what actually reflects, reinforces or sustains the human condition. This makes Christians enablers of the human condition, even in the practice of their faith.

Until Christians can account for their true human condition, there will always be limits and constraints that overtly or subtly impede our humanity from emerging. Moreover, since many of these limits and constraints come disguised as human upgrades (e.g. from technology), the line is blurred between the human condition evolving and humanity’s emergence progressing. Is this course what Jesus anticipated in the Sermon on the Mount for his followers (Mt 7:13-14)?

At this point, a broader grasp of contextual issues will deepen our understanding. The contexts from both the creation context introduced above and the well-established context of evolutionary biology point to a cosmological context. The cosmological question about ‘in the beginning’ revolves around whether humanity’s narrative is composed merely by physics or also beyond physicality, even beyond common notions of metaphysics. The idea of truth and what can be accepted as true have been formed by the knowledge of what exists in the universe in general and in human life in particular, though this epistemological engagement and related conclusions historically have been also shaped by a limited worldview (interpretive framework), cultural constraints (interpretive lens) and even by individual agenda (e.g. a growing problem in the scientific community demonstrated by those seeking stature).[2] Supposedly, then, a valid definition of truth is determined only by what is. Yet, given the contextual issues that influence the formation and shape of what is true—as demonstrated by the use of misinformation—the rhetorical question that Pilate raised to Jesus warrants further attention in our cosmological context and demands qualifying response for theological anthropology: “What is truth?” (Jn 18:38)

Our level of confidence in the knowledge we possess and use—interrelated knowledge for the universe and human life—is by its nature and must be in its practice contingent on two irreplaceable issues:

All affirmations, assertions and definitive statements of knowledge must give account of their source and, equally important, must account for how they relate to this source in the epistemic process. Clearly, we cannot and should not expect to experience resulting knowledge and to form conclusions of what is true beyond what our source, interpretive framework and lens allow. This necessarily applies to any theological engagement and any aspect of the theological task in anthropology, not as an obligatory methodology (e.g. for certainty or to be spiritually correct) but due to the pervasive and prevailing context of the epistemological, hermeneutical, ontological and relational influences of reductionism. In this context of reductionism, the reality of what is that determines the definition of truth becomes composed by epistemological illusion and ontological simulation for what “ought to be” in human life and function.

You’ve probably heard of, or even used, the term reductionism in various ways, mainly as a concept. How significant this term is, however, will not be understood merely as a concept. That understanding can only be attained with a full account of the existential dynamic evolving in the primordial garden.

Underlying the success of evolutionary adaptation is self-centered human action for the preservation of self, which has evolved by what is considered “the selfish gene.”[4]

If selfish genes have dominated human development from the beginning, there is no other composition to humanity’s narrative. I contend, however, this does not compose the human condition, nor can natural selection account for the whole in human development. Human development and progress in human achievement have to be differentiated, since the former is qualitatively oriented while the latter is quantitatively oriented. Consequently, what each lens pays attention to or ignores is different, with different and even conflicting results. For example, social media has greatly expanded the quantity of human connections and, in the progress, reduced the quality of human communication and relationships, along with the persons so engaged.[5] This modern reduction pervades further as the new normal demonstrates by hookup relationships dominating youth-young adult culture in the U.S.

What unfolds here emerges from redefining the human person in quantitative terms from outer in (mainly preoccupied with the secondary over the primary). This reduces the person to one’s parts (notably in multi-tasking or insignificant connections) and results in fragmenting both the whole person in ontology and function as well as persons’ relationships together. Such results cannot be confused with human development, yet human achievement is often mistaken for it and such so-called progress becomes a prevalent substitute for it. Moreover, if such results occur from natural selection, physical determinism certainly has a dark forecast for human life that perhaps warrants fatalism. At the same time, for theological anthropology to shed light on humanity’s narrative, it must clearly illuminate the human condition from the beginning in order to illuminate the ontology and function distinguishing the whole person—whose whole ontology and function are needed to emerge, develop and survive to expose, confront and make whole the human condition.

The fragmentation of the whole person from inner out to outer in evolved from the beginning—not in an evolutionary process of simple objects but in a qualitative relational process of complex subjects. This distinction between human objects and human subjects is problematic in human diversity, and an ongoing issue that has been consequential for humanity. In the creation narrative, a critical dynamic took place in the primordial garden that has been oversimplified (e.g. by spiritualizing it) or lacking in understanding (e.g. not understanding its repercussions on the whole person). As introduced earlier, wholeness is the irreducible and nonnegotiable created ontology and function constituted integrally by the qualitative and relational. Anything less and any substitutes for the human person and persons in relationship together are simply reductions of creation; this condition is what unfolds in the primordial garden (Gen 3:1-13).

This critical dynamic unfolding in the primordial garden underlies and ongoingly contends for the reduction of persons to compose the human condition. What we need to understand fully is about both what Satan does and what the persons do, with the latter usually oversimplified in Christian perception because of the workings of the former. In the female person’s perceptual field (with her brain fully engaged), the fruit she saw evoked feelings of delight, feelings which cannot be reduced to mere sensory matter (as neuroscience observes[6]). She desired it as a means for gaining knowledge and wisdom in referential terms (a prevailing practice today, Gen 3:6), even though she already had whole knowledge and understanding in relational terms (an overlooked practice today, Gen 1:27-28; 2:25). Whether she thought about the fruit as an alternative means prior to this pivotal moment is unknown, but she appeared clearly satisfied with her created condition in whole ontology and function integrated in the whole relationship together of intimacy (implied in bosh, “without disappointment or dismay” about both persons being “embodied whole from inner out,” 2:25); and thus she also appeared satisfied with the Creator in relational terms. Additionally, along with the Creator’s creative action from inner out being satisfying, the Creator’s communicative action directly (not indirectly or implicitly) in relationship with them was not displeasing (“but God said,” 3:3). This all changed when a sweeping assumption was framed as a fact: “You will not surely be reduced” (3:4, NIV). In today’s climate, we can easily relate to misinformation being mistaken for fact.

In the reality of relational terms, however, the feelings evoked by the fruit should also have evoked feelings of insecurity, perhaps even pain—as neuroscientist Cacioppo identified in the social brain[7]— about losing intimately whole relationship together with the Creator and with the other person. Why the feelings about the fruit had more influence than the feelings about whole relationship involved the above assumption, and therefore also this person’s perceptual-interpretive framework and lens making the following pivotal shift in function:

The shift from inner out to outer in (focused on bodily nakedness), from the qualitative to the quantitative (focused on fruit), from the relational to the referential (of knowledge and wisdom), therefore from what is primary to secondary things (“good for food…a delight to the eyes…desired to make one wise”) that preoccupied human function accordingly.

This pivotal shift involved a higher level human function, which reveals the absence of supervenience assumed by nonreductive physicalism[8]. Rather, what is unfolding is the encompassing reality of the reductionist dynamic of the human condition. What evolved is ongoingly evidenced both in the pervading human effort for self-determination—which could also be described as selfish genes—and in the prominent human shaping of relationships on self-conscious terms (“coverings” and “hiding”). This shift makes evident when self-consciousness (“naked and fragmented”) evolved to displace person-consciousness (“naked and whole”). What fully accounts for this pivotal shift from wholeness and its resulting fragmentary actions is reductionism (insufficiently defined as disobedience) and its ongoing counter-relational presence and influence: that which counters the whole in creation and conflicts with the whole of the Creator, thereby elevating the quantitative as primary over the qualitative and substituting referential terms for relational terms to renegotiate the primacy of relationship together.

The shift from wholeness, simply stated, is the shift to anything less and any substitutes, all of which compose the human condition. The importance of this knowledge and understanding of this pivotal shift cannot be overstated. Nor can it be understated that anything less and any substitutes will be reductions, since they render us by default to the human condition. We make sweeping assumptions that our knowledge and understanding are not reductions when they are framed as facts or sound theories. The misinformation, condition and function of anything less and any substitutes have prevailed in the evolving human narrative and have even been presented as whole for human life—all counter to the reality that nothing less and no substitutes constitute the whole of created humanity. The sum consequence, even by default, on human being and being human—and who and what can emerge or develop—is the human condition, evolving from the beginning by the seemingly reasonable assumption “we will not be reduced,” especially if our knowledge and understanding have some basis in the probability framework of fact.

Therefore, the inescapable reality of the human condition is sin. But, and this is a critical “but”, sin without reductionism does not comprise the breadth and depth of the human condition that evolved in the primordial garden. Without understanding reductionism as intrinsic to inherent sin, Christian practice has been susceptible to the subtle and seductive counter-relational workings of reductionism in the daily application of their existential faith. This susceptibility is notable in Christian diversity and evident in the diverse adaptations made in global Christianity.[9] Thus, all Christians and churches need to examine their view of sin and account for reductionism in their theology and practice.

The Reformation has been pivotal in amplifying diverse adaptations in Christian theology and practice.[10] With the theological framework of justification by faith, Christian freedom has been exercised such that it unavoidably has been consequential for fragmenting (intentionally or unintentionally) the church locally, regionally, and globally. Theologically, this makes equivocal what Jesus saves us from and inaccessible what he saves us to—the makings of theological fog. This opens the door for reductionism’s counter-relational workings to define Christian identity and determine Christian function in existential practice—still under the assumption of justification by faith and notably assuming that such variations “make one wise” as evolved in the primordial garden. This door remains open today and continues to enable and sustain the human condition evolving, the effects of which simply keep enhancing the what of the human condition so that the who of humanity is further impeded from emerging. What, then, is the gospel claimed and proclaimed by Christians and churches in their adaptations?

Based further on the summons of God’s family, the unavoidable reality ongoingly facing all Christians and churches today is integrally both accountability for their current condition, and their responsibility to turn around the what of the human condition and to enact the who of humanity. This is unequivocal accountability and responsibility for nothing less and no substitutes, or else reductionism remains at work to define theology (as in “be like God”) and determine practice (as in “know good and evil” and “not be reduced”).

In the history of human development, the prevailing mode for survival centered on development as either hunters or gatherers. Changes in situations and circumstances have required ongoing adaptations in order to develop in surrounding contexts. Yet, what appear as anachronistic to modern approaches to human development, in reality continue to prevail in global contexts today; and these modes also pervade Christian development either for its retardation or for its maturation.

With the development of Christianity shifting in prominence from the Minority World (or global North) to the Majority World (or global South), the question arises and perhaps begged by some: Is this global development a maturation of Christianity or really its retardation? The answer depends on the mode for development engaged.

Without recognizing and enforcing sin as reductionism in its theology and practice, Christianity from its inception has struggled by adapting in its surrounding contexts. Survival became the primary focus of concern, although other faith-related interests remained on the agenda as a less urgent priority. Consider, for example, how the Western mindset has shaped what to pursue (i.e. hunt) for survival and success; and how this lens determines the results as either satisfaction or shame. With this biased lens, examine how this skews what is necessary to gain (gather) for growth and flourishing. Hereby are the hunters and gatherers composing Christianity. While postcolonial shifts are moving away from Western Christianity, the question remains about the mode of Christian development used in those diverse contexts.[11] Sin as reductionism is not a framework of Western limits and constraints; rather its workings envelop the what of the human condition existing in its total global diversity. Therefore, Christians and churches in the Majority World cannot assume that their development embodies and enacts the who of humanity.

In Luke’s Gospel, his strong concern for the gospel to be inclusive of all peoples emerges in his recording of the outcast tax collector Zacchaeus (Lk 19:1-10). Jesus’ relational involvement with so-called others was uncommon for a Jew, as well as for those who discriminated against others. What the Word embodied uncommonly is clearly distinguished: “the Son of Man came to seek out and to save the lost” (v.10). In other words, the Word embodied the relational involvement of a hunter. Furthermore, when the Word’s mode of Christian development was accused of being false, he made definitive “the finger of God” as the mode by which “the kingdom-family of God has come to you” (Lk 11:14-23). In this confrontation, the embodied Word made conclusive that he was also the gatherer: So, “whoever is not relationally involved with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me on my relational terms scatters.”

According to the embodied Word, then, the mode of Christian development involves integrally the relational action of hunters and gatherers. The Word’s relational action, however, embodies hunters and gatherers not for the purpose of survival—the subtle prevailing purpose for Christian development as evolved from the primordial garden. Rather, the Word’s essential purpose embodies the development of following his person only on his relational terms, that is, the primary purpose of discipleship developed in reciprocal relationship together: “where I am, there will my disciple be also” (Jn 12:26); “whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters” (Lk 11:23). “With me” embodies “follow me,” and this enactment is developed only with the ongoing relational involvement of our whole person in reciprocal relationship with Jesus’ whole person (not merely his teachings).

The mode for Jesus’ followers is narrowed down to just his relational mode for his relational purpose with his relational outcome. Foremost, his relational mode embodies “the image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15, cf. 2 Cor 4:4), which distinguishes what is primary in Christian development: the whole-ly life as persons in the qualitative image and relational likeness of the Trinity. Therefore, to “follow me” on his relational terms develops not by serving him (a common misguiding assumption) but by the relational mode (as uncommon as it is) of heart-level involvement with his person—namely, by the inner-out person as created in the ontological identity and function of humanity. This is irreducible and nonnegotiable for Christian development, just as Peter learned the hard way in his struggling discipleship (as in Mt 16:22-23; Jn 13:6-8; 21:17-22; Gal 2:11-14).

In global Christianity there is diverse development of discipleship due to a diversity of modes, which subtly become divergent from nothing less and no substitutes of the Word. Thus, the prevailing reality is undeniable: Without distinguishing the who of humanity from the what of the human condition in their practice, Christians and churches readily fall into practice as scatterers instead of as gatherers—the relational consequence of not having ongoing heart-level relational involvement “with me”; accordingly, they become the hunted (pursued) rather than hunters—just as God gathered his family with his summons face to face to hold them accountable and responsible for nothing less and no substitutes (Ps 50:5,21).

The survival mode of hunters and gatherers raises critical questions about Christian development as hunters and gatherers today. In the diversity of global Christianity, these questions need to be directed first to the global North and then to the global South.

When you play sports, it should be a given that learning the fundamentals of the sport is basic to player development. Success in sports, however, is often not based on fundamentals—as evident notably in professional baseball and basketball, where successful individuals and teams have lacked in fundamentals. Likewise, development in the Christian life should be based on fundamentals, that is, the fundamentals embodied by the Word. Yet, what is deemed a success in the diversity of global Christianity is often not based on the Word’s fundamentals, but rather by what its surrounding context(s) renders as successful (cf. the church in Sardis, Rev 3:1-2).

The created humanity of persons in the primordial garden sought to advance their human development. Their pursuit of an apparent laudable goal (“gaining wisdom”), however, came at the expense of the nonnegotiable fundamentals of their created humanity. Under the influence of their surrounding context, they sought successful results in their development rather than the created relational outcomes for their humanity. Such results have evolved to confuse all persons ever since for the outcomes of humanity, which shouldn’t be surprising but expected from the counter-relational workings of reductionism. So, with the expansion of global Christianity, the unavoidable question for Christians and churches urgently becomes: Is humanity emerging as created by God, or is the human condition evolving even more subtly (as in “gaining wisdom”) from the primordial garden?

Christians and churches have struggled with the disparity between successful results and relational outcomes from the initial development of Christianity. As referenced earlier, Peter’s working model of the successful messiah was contrary to the outcome revealed by Jesus the Messiah (Mt 16:21). The Word’s revelation “must never happen to you” as the results for Peter’s messiah, who was shaped by Peter’s religious culture even after he correctly confessed “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God” (Mt 16:16). In the early church, further successful results prevented relational outcomes, which resulted in relational consequences for the following churches:

1. The church in Laodicea (Rev 3:14-20) acquired successful results based on the wealthy economy of its surrounding context. Its accumulated resources gave them a false sense of security, which made the church complacent—an opaque condition that diluted their discipleship in lukewarm Christian practice. Rather than simply dismissing this church for its scattered identity and function, the palpable Word (together with the Spirit) pursues (hunts) them with direct relational involvement to make face-to-face connection for the relational outcome to gather them together in the primacy fundamentally as his family; this is the relational significance embodying the traditional notion of “I stand at the door and knock…” (v.20).

2. The church at Sardis (Rev 3:1-3) was the early counterpart to mega-churches today. Based on the definition and/or perception of success assumed from its surrounding context, this church enjoyed having “a reputation of being alive.” Its brand (onoma), however, was merely a substitute for the persons and relationships constituting their created humanity, for which it lacked clarity. Consequently, the Word pursued them with a “Wake-up” call because “I have not found your practice complete [pleroo, whole] in the perceptual-interpretive lens of my God.” Their development will never result in the wholeness created by God, no matter how successful, until they turn from seeking such successful results and restore God’s relational mode for the relational outcomes distinguished only by the embodied Word’s relational terms. “Wake up and follow my whole person!”

3. The church in Ephesus (Rev 2:1-5) existed in a tense context that subjected them to trials and tribulations—similar to what diverse churches experience in global Christianity. Through it all this church maintained a theological integrity of orthodoxy and a rigorous practice that was successful in meeting the challenges of their surrounding context. As impressive as this may appear, the Word pursues them with the surprising critique: “I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first.” How so? They served the Lord with the intensity that few churches can claim. Here we witness the subtlety of reductionism’s counter-relational workings, which clouded their perceptions for a lack of clarity in their biblical theology and practice. In spite of their theological orthodoxy and rigorous practice, the primacy of relationship together constituting “Follow me” was subordinated by what amounts to secondary matters (however important, like serving), thereby substituting the Word’s relational terms primary for discipleship with diverse terms for Christian practice—terms which evidence a reduced theological anthropology with a weak view of sin. This always has the relational consequence of effectively (though perhaps unintentionally) “abandoning the relational involvement of God’s love constituting the fundamental primacy of relationship together in wholeness.”

When Christians and churches lack the relational mode and outcome fundamental to both discipleship and created humanity as embodied by the Word, their development will always lack wholeness and incur relational consequences. This is the unavoidable reality regardless of their successful results. We need to fully understand the depth of significance that the fundamentals of Christian development require in daily practice, in order for Christian identity to be defined and Christian function to be determined as integrally constituted in creation and restored by the new creation (as in 2 Cor 5:16-17).

Christians readily claim from the gospel that they are “a new creation.” What typically is assumed in this claim, however, is that the old (original) creation is now subordinated or replaced by the new. This is contrary to the Word, who embodied “the image of the living God” in order to unequivocally distinguish the who, what and how fundamental to creation both original and new. Paul also provides definitive clarity that this fundamental depth is contrary to “a human point of view” (2 Cor 5:16)—a view which is opaque and thus subject to diversified rendering (cf. 2 Cor 3:14-18). The condition of having clarity or being opaque is a basic issue for understanding the fundamentals of who and what are essential and how their function is determined.

Observers of Christian witness must be confused or skeptical about what’s the “how” in Christians and churches, and rightly so given “what and who” the diversity of Christianity demonstrate existentially. Moreover, rightly so given how diversely and divisively it’s demonstrated. From the earliest stages of the church, Christianity was always diverse and did not emerge from a singular cultural framework or race. Thus, the diversity of contemporary churches in global Christianity is not new but an extension of the early church’s history. Similarly, what many contemporary churches demonstrate today duplicates the early churches in Laodicea, Sardis and Ephesus. As contemporary churches repeat what the Word critiqued in those early churches for, churches today demonstrate lacking clarity of the who, what and how fundamental to creation (original and new). Therefore, the feedback from observers of Christian witness notwithstanding, we need to examine who and what are existentially essential in global Christianity today, and how their functions is determined by its diversity.

This examination could be made by outsiders or insiders, from top-down or bottom-up. What could be, however, would be insufficient to explain the how, even by insiders; and it would also be inadequate to explain the who and what, because even insiders from bottom-up are limited and constrained by their bias. I, myself, am a limited insider, with constraints assumed from top-down. Thus, I defer to the embodied Word and count on him (together with the Spirit) to unfold this examination as the integral Outsider definitively from top-down.

As a person of color, my person lacked clarity in my early life; even after I became a Christian my person remained opaque. My culture of origin was certainly

instrumental in being opaque. Yet, even more so, my surrounding context and religious culture reinforced and sustained my opaqueness. The diversity of Christians and churches need to understand these influences that, on the one hand, cloud their clarity while, on the other hand, substitute alternatives that are simply opaque. Consider how the person in general and your person in particular is defined and depicted in your specific context. What clarity does this provide you for the person God created and the Word embodied as “the image of the living God”? And how opaque would you say your person may be compared to the person of the Word?

Fundamental for the persons at creation is having the clarity of the person created from inner out. That is, though their outer bodies were naked, their persons functioned clearly from inner out; thus, they “were not ashamed” of their whole persons from inner out. This is most significant, because we’re not witnessing a mere blind eye to the human body. As noted earlier, the Hebrew term for shame (bosh) involves confusion, disappointment, embarrassment or even dismay when things do not turn out as expected. The basis for their having no shame, confusion, disappointment, embarrassment or dismay is fundamental for their persons to be whole from inner out and not be fragmented in some alternative way from outer in. Since the lens of this male and female was not constrained to the outer in, and thus was not even limited to the dominant distinction of gender, their intimate relational connection emerged from the deep consciousness of their whole person from the inner out. The emergence of this unique human consciousness is integral for the created ontology and function of all persons, regardless of whatever distinctions they have from outer in. The process of person-consciousness emerged on this clear basis to present the person without any masks or barriers (e.g. even the distinction of gender) in order to be involved with each other at the depth level necessary to distinguish the clarity of their whole person. This is fundamental for any and all persons to be “naked and without shame” and thus essential in order that their development not to fall into the opaque condition of “naked and covering up.”

Therefore, the most essential fundamental for created humanity is the person-consciousness that is focused clearly on the whole person starting from, but not limited to, the inner out. There is clarity when the person’s inner is not consciously either overlooked or quantified, for example by the brain or mind (as evident in neuroscience[12]). The inner person was created qualitatively in the image of God, yet not without the quantitative dimension of the outer person. Different cultures define and emphasize the inner person on a diverse spectrum, which each context must examine for its clarity. The emergence of God’s people in their created humanity unfolded qualitatively—though they stagnated when they struggled in the quantitative—only by the person-consciousness of the heart as the primary function of the who in their humanity. To review what was defined above in the emergence of humanity:

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

The qualitative heart is fundamental to who, what and how the person is in created ontology and function. This essential fundamental is irreplaceable for the person created totally in the qualitative image of who, what and how God is. Moreover, this fundamental is imperative for persons to be connected and involved in relationship with God by the relational likeness of God. At the same time, this fundamental imperative is nonnegotiable with God, which the embodied Word revealed strategically: For relationship together, “the Father seeks persons…who worship him…in spirit and truth”—that is, the qualitative heart of the whole person in reciprocal response to “God is heart” (Jn 4:20-24). Christians, however, must not merely spiritualize the “spirit,” nor constrain the heart to the inner person (as in a dualistic soul). This fragments the whole person whom God created integrally inner and outer. The heart is fundamental for the person’s integral inner-and-outer function, and the separation of the inner person from the outer (or the converse) in any diversity is fragmentary.

In the diversity of contemporary worship, for example, in your specific context what is the diverse style of worship that reverberates in churches you’re familiar with? And can you distinguish persons resonating from inner out with the clarity of their whole person, or is the Word’s critique applicable (Mk 7:6-7)? The separation of the person from inner to outer, even from outer to inner, imposes limits and constraints on persons to have clarity of their identity and function. Such limits and constraints become the norm in church traditions, and their practice is normalized whenever and wherever churches gather to compose this new normal in opaque contrast to creation (original and new).

The fragmentation of the person in either direction reduces the person from his/her created humanity. Regardless of the degree of reduction, such a person loses clarity of the who of humanity. This leaves the person in a susceptible condition both to redefine the created identity (ontology) of all persons and to substitute a diverse function divergent from creation. The existing reality of this issue is fundamental for Christian diversity. Christians, for example, cannot proclaim the equality of humanity merely because all persons are created equal by God, while in the reality of their existential practice they haven’t claimed their created identity and function as whole persons from inner out. Such existential practice makes human distinctions that effectively become exclusionary of some human differences. The we of humanity is inclusive of all persons, thus the explicit or implicit exclusion of any person by default renders the we fragmentary. This exclusionary dynamic is critical to understand.

Any person lacking clarity of the who, what and how constituting all persons created by God thereby falls into a transposed human consciousness from inner out to outer in. This involves the dissonant transition from person-consciousness to self-consciousness, which was evidenced originally in the primordial garden (Gen 3:7). The human self evolved and continues to evolve always resulting in the immeasurable cost of losing consciousness of the person; this loss is the oft-subtle consequence of reductionism in all its diversity. The workings of reductionism offer, promise or seduce the person with “your eyes will be opened and you will be like God” (Gen 3:5). How much in the theology and practice of Christian diversity makes a similar claim? But, the assumed successful result evolved into opaque lenses without clarity: “the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked, because they made the dissonant transition from person-consciousness to self-consciousness to transpose their whole persons from inner out to a fragmentary outer-in condition with diverse distinctions” (3:7).

The self in human identity and function is described in variable ways. The self of human biology, of course, evolves as the selfish gene promoting self-preservation. Whatever the variation, the self is oriented foremost around self, thus it’s primarily centered on self. This reduces the self’s perceptual-interpretive lens to an opacity that prevents clarity of the person, which then results in a consciousness mainly of self without any significant person-consciousness. Two critical issues come to the forefront that are fundamental for Christians and churches. Both issues interact to either illuminate and intensify the emergence of humanity, or darken and counter it from emerging further:

1. Either Christians and churches have clarity of the person’s created identity and function, or are opaque about who, what and how they are from inner out.

2. Then, Christians and churches engage in Christian practice and development in the primary mode of either person-consciousness or self-consciousness.

What is fundamental for created humanity to function in Christians and churches is not open to negotiation. The embodied Word makes axiomatic what’s at stake here, and thus what Christians and churches can expect regardless of the basis for their hope. His axiom unfolds in “the measure you give or use will be the measure you get” (Mk 4:24). Therefore, all Christians and churches take note:

1a. The clarity of the person you use in your development and give in your practice,

1b. The opaque lens you use in your development and give in your practice, is the self you get.

2a. The person-conscious mode you use in your development and give in your practice,

2b. The self-conscious mode you use in your development and give in your practice,

The fundamentals of humanity constituted by the whole person’s clarity in person-consciousness are ongoingly subjected to the counter-relational workings of reductionism. This results in substitutes with the opaque self in self-consciousness that generate ontological simulations and compose functional illusions about the who, what and how all persons are in created humanity. Christians need to be honest about the reality that we are all self-conscious at times one way or another. And the inescapable reality we need to realize is that self-consciousness is our default mode—whether in our created humanity or our new creation—whenever we are not explicitly engaged in person-consciousness. Thus, even when we are serving God, our default mode evolves in subtle ontological simulations and functional illusions to make our persons opaque. Therefore, Christians and churches need to honestly account for these simulations and illusions in the diversity of their theology and practice, and thereby take responsibility for anything less and any substitutes that have evolved.

Human ontology and function are not static conditions, though they are certainly created whole in a definitive qualitative and relational condition that is not subject to a relative process of determination or emergence. Human ontology and function were created whole in the beginning. The issue from the beginning, however, is whether this ontology and function will continue existentially to be whole by living whole.

To continue to be whole is a qualitative function of person-consciousness that focuses on the person from inner out, that is, on nothing less than the whole person. Yet, the whole person is not a simple object operating within the parameters of a predetermined condition or behavioral pattern. Rather, contrary to some theories of the person, the whole person is a complex subject whose function includes human agency composed by the will that further distinguishes the person’s uniqueness created by God.

The complex human subject is manifested in different outward forms, all of which cannot be explained. For example, any lack of physical capacity does not relegate a person to reduced ontology and function, though variable ontology and function is still possible for such a person. Each of these different forms, however, should not be perceived in the inevitable comparative process of prevailing human distinctions that compose a deficit model identifying those differences as less—just as I experienced as a person of color. This has obvious relational implications for those cultures and traditions that have favored certain persons (e.g. by race) and thereby discriminated against others (e.g. by class, gender, age). Such practice is not only ethically and morally unacceptable for the global church, but most important it exposes the sin as reductionism of persons embodying the church in reduced ontology and function.

What is definitive of the complex human subject in any form is this reality: “It is not good to be apart” from the wholeness that God created for all human ontology and function in the qualitative image and relational likeness of God, and therefore any human subject can be affirmed and needs to live in whole ontology and function—even if conditions, situations and circumstances appear to the contrary, as it does for the persons discussed above. This challenges both our assumptions about persons who are different, and how we perceive/define them and thereby engage them in relationship. Any differences from our perceptual-interpretive lens that we impose on them reflect our reduced ontology and function, not theirs.

When those in the primordial garden saw their selves from outer in, “they made opaque coverings for their selves” (Gen 3:7, NIV). This set in motion the evolution of the prevailing human dynamic: The presentation of self to displace the involvement of the person in everyday life.[13] The self has evolved in this presentation as the opaque covering in contrast to and in conflict with the involvement of the whole person from inner out. In the evolving diversity of presentations of self, this self-oriented dynamic adapts into a self-centered mode that gives birth to simulations of one’s human ontology (identity) and propagates illusions of human function—ontological simulations and functional illusions in the divergent condition to created humanity.

In the diversity of global Christianity, every context must examine any adaptations made in the presentation of self. All Christians and churches must take to heart the Word’s axiom that “the adaptations you use is the self you get.” For any of their adaptations in diverse contexts, the assumption cannot be claimed, even by insiders from bottom-up: Because they have faith, they are justified—whereby the bias of ‘justification by faith’ becomes misleading theologically and misguiding in practice. Since the Reformation in particular, Christians and churches have been misled theologically and misguided in practice to evolve into a diversity that strains to be reconciled in what’s primary to God. Preoccupation with the secondary, however, has reinforced and sustained the global church to be fragmentary, which is our pervasive condition disguised by ontological simulations and functional illusions.

Yet, evolving well before the Reformation, God’s people adapted soon after covenant relationship was established to further evolve the presentation of self contrary to God’s terms for relationship together (summarized in Isa 29:13-16, and exposed by the Word, Mk 7:6-13). This dynamic also pervaded Jesus’ first disciples, who seemed nearly obsessed with presenting their self as “the greatest” in discipleship (Mt 18:1; Mk 9:33-34; Lk 9:46; 22:24). Not surprisingly, they weren’t transparent about this with Jesus since any self presented is always opaque, keeping their person constrained in relational distance (consequential to Jn 14:9). Opacity was demonstrated in Peter’s presentation of self, who maintained subtle relational distance with Jesus in spite of how outspoken and assertive he was in discipleship. His ongoing self presented to Jesus is the underlying issue that precipitates Jesus’ seemingly odd query of his most intense disciple: “do you love me” (Jn 21:15-17), that is, “is your whole person vulnerably involved with my person in the intimacy of relationship together, thus without relational distance” as Peter demonstrated at his footwashing (Jn 13:6-8). Peter’s involvement as a person was compromised by his presentation of self, and this provoked the embodied Word’s challenge of Peter’s preoccupation with the secondary (e.g. Jn 21:20-22) over what’s primary for the Word. Ironically, Peter’s adaptations of presenting his self in his successful ministry proclaiming the gospel had this result: his opaque self engaged in mere role-playing (hypokrisis) that wasn’t congruent “with the truth of the gospel” (Gal 2:11-14).

Any and all presentation of self make opaque the person underlying the identity and function presented. For this opaque dynamic to have a successful result, it must be able to present convincing substitutes, both as simulations of the person’s ontology and illusions of the person’s function created by God and restored by the Word in the new creation. Such simulations and illusions are possible in global Christianity only when misled by reduced theological anthropology and misguided in practice by a weak view of sin lacking reductionism. On this basis, the person becomes indistinguishable from the self presented, whereby (1) human ontology is composed quantitatively from outer in over qualitatively from inner out and (2) human function is engaged in the secondary over the primary while maintaining relational distance. These simulations and illusions are the genius of reductionism’s counter-relational workings, with the diversity of Christian churches most susceptible to substitute their identity and function in order to have successful results in their diverse contexts. For this pervasive condition in the global church, the Word’s critique resounds so that “all the churches will know that I am the one who searches minds and hearts of the whole person from inner out” (Rev 2:23).

The opaque condition of self prevails in Christian practice, which functions incongruently with “the truth of the gospel” just as Peter did. Of course, Paul’s exposure of Peter’s opacity is based on the whole gospel embodied by the Word, and not fragments of the gospel that bias Christian practice with limits and constraints. The latter simply prevents the experiential truth and relational reality of the gospel’s new creation person from emerging.

Likely, the most pervasive practice of these simulations and illusions is evident in worship gatherings. For example, the opaque self may reverberate from outer in while worshipping, but the limits and constraints of that self prevent the person from resonating from inner out. This is commonly witnessed in worship. The heart of the person doesn’t function until the opaque coverings (or veil) adapted by the self is removed, whereby the person is freed to resonate from inner out. The person’s heart and wholeness (“spirit and truth”) are what the Father seeks in reciprocal relational response of worship, nothing less and no substitutes for the person. However, this inner-out relational response infrequently resonates in worshippers, because the person is displaced by the self’s simulations and illusions reverberating quantitatively from outer in—which is the amplified new normal of contemporary worship. Regardless of the style of diverse church worship gatherings, it should be evident how vulnerable or how opaque participants are, whether self-consciousness is the norm or person-consciousness is the exception, thus whether what the Father seeks is relationally engaged or merely given lip service.

The new creation constituted by the embodied Word emerged functionally to reconstitute the existential context of worship gatherings. On the cross when “Jesus cried again with a loud voice and breathed his last, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom” (Mt 27:50-51). How does this usher in the new creation?

1. It makes functional what the Father seeks from the person in reciprocal relationship together and establishes the face-to-face relational process for intimate relational connection with the whole person (as defined in Heb 10:19-22).

2. It constitutes the redemptive process for the person to be freed from the limits and constraints imposed by the opaque self, all of which converge in the symbolic veil (or masks) used by self to cover up the inner-out person.

3. The integral redemptive process intensifies into the transformation of the person to restore the wholeness from inner out in the image and likeness of the Trinity—made definitive by Paul (2 Cor 3:16-18).

This irreplaceable fundamental process of redemptive transformation constitutes the experiential truth and relational reality of the gospel’s new creation. And this is the only existential relational outcome of the whole gospel embodied by the Word in the ontology and function of the Trinity. Anything less and any substitutes are a different gospel from a different God, whose diversity never constitutes the emergence of created humanity (original and new) but merely further evolves the human condition.

The human condition of reduced ontology and function evolves in distinctions of ontology and differences in function. These distinctions and differences have readily become normative in diverse contexts, the diversity of which has evolved also in the global church. The reality of our human condition needs to be a wake-up call because “the Word has not found your practice whole in the sight of God” (Rev 3:2). Thus, we must never underestimate the counter-relational workings of reductionism to propagate ontological simulations and functional illusions in Christian practice (see 2 Cor 11:14-15). Likewise, we should not overestimate the results achieved in Christian practice, no matter how successful. “Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us all?” (Mal 2:10) Or, do we still think “I was altogether like you” (Ps 50:21)?

Therefore, in all our diversity, Christians and churches need to honestly examine our gospel and what outcome they experience existentially from it. Then, we need to understand who actually makes up our gatherings and on what basis we gather. Regarding worship, we need to discover whether the reality of how we worship relationally gathers intimately behind the curtain where God is, or still gathers in front of the curtain at a relational distance. In all this, does our created humanity emerge, or our human condition evolve?

[1] Supervenience involves a higher level human function (notably the mind) having determining effect (if not cause) upon lower level human function (the body); this assumed quality in humans is distinct from the body, yet is inseparable from and interdependent with bodily function (namely the brain).

[2] See Thomas Kuhn’s discussion on the non-scientific influences shaping scientific theories, models and conclusions in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2^nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970).

[3] During his attempt to develop a “grand unified theory” (GUT), noted physicist Stephen Hawking gave up his quest for such a complete comprehensive theory for knowing the world in its innermost parts, because he concluded that this wasn’t possible with the limited framework of science—that a physical theory can only be self-referencing and therefore can only be either inconsistent or incomplete. Discussed in Hans Küng, The Beginning of All Things: Science and Religion (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 15-24.

[4] Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986).

[5] The effects of technology on the quality of human life are discussed by Sherry Turkle in Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other (New York: Basic Books, 2011).

[6] For example, see neuroscientist Antonio Damasio, Self Comes to Mind: Constructing the Conscious Brain (New York: Pantheon Books, 2010).

[7] John T. Cacioppo and William Patrick, loneliness: Human Nature and the Need for Social Connection (New York: W.W. Norton, 2008).

[8] A view discussed by Warren S. Brown, Nancey Murphy and H. Newton Malony, eds., Whatever Happened to the Soul? Scientific and Theological Portraits of Human Nature (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1998).

[9] For one formative view of this history, see Jehu J. Hanciles, Migration and the Making of Global Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2021).

[10] For a people’s overview of this history, see Denis R. Janz, A People’s History of Christianity: From the Reformation to the Twenty-first Century (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2014).

[11] For example, I question the approach taken by Kay Higuera Smith, Jayachitra Lalitha and L. Daniel Hawk, eds., Evangelical Postcolonial Conversations: Global Awakenings in Theology and Praxis (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2014).

[12] This is evident in the studies noted earlier in this chapter.

[13] For a general description of this dynamic in social contexts, see Erving Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (New York: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1959).