Ch 3 Persons, Peoples, Tribes and Nations--Their Identity and Belonging

God said to the first humans, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.”

So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth.

Have you seen recent news coverage of U.S. Border Patrol agents on horseback whipping and rounding up Haitian refugees, as if they were cattle? Haiti bears the opaque identity as “poorest nation in the Western hemisphere.” While Haitians certainly struggle economically, they have suffered more from the hands of autocratic leadership that has devolved from their origins—leaders supported by the U.S. Thus, this identity is opaque because it covers Haiti’s decisive history accounting for its redemptive fight, which successfully ended the slavery of its people to gain independence from foreign domination. This redemptive history unfolded at the turn of the 19^th century to establish Haitian identity in freedom from bondage and in racial equality for all. Toussaint Louverture, Haiti’s most important revolutionary leader, explained his armies’ success: “We are fighting that liberty—the most precious of all earthly possessions—may not perish.”[1] Indeed, Haiti was instrumental in amplifying liberty for the rise of the West and the early expansion of the U.S.—a debt that should be paid rather than incurred by this “poorest nation in the Western hemisphere.”

This illustrates the complex process of identity formation for persons, peoples, tribes and nations. This complex process easily gets convoluted, causing human identity to diverge from its origins. The history of global diversity assumes a richness in the identities of diverse narratives, yet the identity formation of these persons, peoples, tribes and nations has not necessarily illuminated their origins. This is not surprising but to be expected, since this complex process is variably defined and determined notably by culture and ideology. These critical sources of influence, though not limited to these two, relegate identity to a relative formation that (1) makes uncertain who a person, a people, a tribe or a nation really are, and that (2) makes elusive what their identity signifies both to them and to others.

The ambiguity of identity in human life raises serious issues that need to concern all Christians and churches especially, because our identity formation readily mirrors our surrounding contexts to make our identity less distinguishable from its origins. Moreover, when anyone’s identity lacks the significance of its essential composition, there are consequential prolonged repercussions revolving on where they belong existentially and whom they belong to relationally.

Human identity serves the key purpose that informs us about who and what we are, and thus how to function. While identity is certainly not a singular composition, there is a primary identity that mainly defines who and what we present to others, including determining how we live existentially in that context. No moment in time, not one situation or association adequately defines an identity, as Haitians would testify. Thus, identity formation is an ongoing process of trial and error, change, development and maturation. This is evident from the beginning of creation, and we have to understand defining pivotal issues in identity formation evolving since.

The primary identity of the first humans was defined as persons from inner out in the image and likeness of the Creator. Their identity was also formed with the secondary distinctions of gender. These persons were given the essential purpose to “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth” (Gen 1:28). “Fill” (malé) signifies to complete what the Creator started with their persons. What God created was the qualitative person from inner out, not the quantitative self from outer in. Thus, “fruitful and multiply” is a qualitative function distinguishing the identity of qualitative persons, whose identity and function are to “fill the earth” foremost on the primary basis of the qualitative from inner out—with all the secondary subordinate to the primary.

Perhaps serious issues are rising in your thinking, and they rightly should. What has evolved globally ever since is not the unfolding of this initial identity formation. Rather the essential identity of those persons shifted in formation from inner out to outer in, thus from the primary to the secondary, making the quantitative more urgent than the qualitative as well as more accessible and easier to fulfill. This set into motion the dynamics of identity formation that have been consequential for who and what compose the global diversity of persons, peoples, tribes and nations filling the earth. God originally designed created diversity (notably gender) to fill the earth, so this diversity is not the issue. The problem with human diversity evolves when the created identity becomes indistinguishable due to an opaque-causing process in the divergence of identity formation.

This problem should not be confused as a situation merely to manage, that is, manage with any and all secondary measures available (as in Gen 3:7). Christians and churches need to understand the problem and resolve to solve it first in the diversity of the global church and then in the global community.

When human identity shifted from inner out to outer in, this inevitably evolved into an explicit or implicit comparative system, the basis of which was structured primarily by the quantitative. As evolved subtly from the primordial garden, identity formation engages the comparative system on a distinct hierarchical scale that gets formalized in surrounding contexts, whereby all identity is measured as better or worse, more or less. And the only way for that identity to rise on the scale is to have more and to be better, always primarily in quantitative terms. Haiti’s identity is measured on this quantitative comparative scale and thus is relegated to the bottom in the Western hemisphere.

In the comparative system, the quantitative outer in doesn’t outshine the qualitative inner out, it simply overshadows the latter with opacity in identity formation. Accordingly, once the shift is made to make primary human ontology from the outer in over inner out, the human distinctions both created by God (like gender) and those evolved in human contexts, all these distinctions become the central focus for human perceptual-interpretive lenses. This forms an intrinsic bias by which identity is seen, developed, assessed and advanced existentially. That quantifies such distinctions—not only for human identity but for God’s identity also (as in Ps 50:21)—to be measured by what evolved from the primordial garden: the inevitable comparative process (“you will be like God,” Gen 3:5). Therefore, in any comparative system participants must conform to quantitative parameters for their identity formation to be relevant in that context. Conformity-for-relevance should not be confused for significance of human identity, yet, such relevance evolves inherently in primacy given to the outer in.

Conformity to be relevant in a comparative system that evolves locally, regionally or globally has been a defining concern for identity formation both in the general human context and in the context of God’s people throughout history. This concern revolves effectively on survival, which evolves in a comparative system by being fit or becoming the fittest. It was this concern that became defining for the identity formation of God’s people, because they wanted to conform to the parameters of the comparative system in their surrounding context. After God established covenant relationship only on God’s relational terms, God’s people shifted to outer in for determining their practice of the covenant. This pivotal shift reduced their practice to quantitative comparisons in observing God’s Law, and then entrenched them in the comparative system of their surrounding context. With this biased lens, they saw their identity as relative only to God and thus as irrelevant in the surrounding comparative system. Specifically, all other peoples, tribes and nations were identified by the rule of a formal king, whereas the rule of God’s people didn’t measure up by comparison. Rather than affirm the unique and essential quality of God’s rule, they demanded a king from God in order for their assumed survival to be fit like all the others (1 Sam 8:4-9, 19-20).

This pivotal comparative shift, of course, was critical for its relational consequences in their identity formation as God’s people: foremost, “they have rejected me from being king over them” (v.7). Nevertheless, conformity-for-relevance in the surrounding context was their priority, and thus they became entrenched in the comparative system ongoingly measuring their identity accordingly. This was further consequential relationally with the reconstitution of their belonging, making ambiguous where they belonged and obscuring whom they belonged to. Christians and churches cannot ignore such ambiguity or underestimate its impact on the diversity of their witness.

Earlier in the context of the human narrative, a variation of conformity was attempted in what amounts to a grand experiment of false hope in the survival of human identity. The diversity of humanity was scattering over the earth, which would populate the whole earth (Gen 9:19). A people in this early context had one language with the same meaning for all. On this basis, they made the critical choice to construct a common context for conformity in their identity formation in order to negate or neutralize created distinctions, which naturally God designed to “be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.” Contrary to God’s purpose, this people resolved for created diversity not to “be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth” (Gen 11:1-4). On the one hand, they correctly assumed that human distinctions should not be defining for human identity. But, on the other hand, human constructed distinctions biased their lens from seeing the purpose of God’s created distinctions. Their biased lens evolved from the workings of reductionism underlying human identity formation. Therefore, God took counter action to dispel the false hope composing their ontological simulation and functional illusion (Gen 11:5-9).

The model constructed at Babel has evolved and effectively been replicated for survival by diverse peoples, tribes and nations. Each of them has exerted diverse means (including coercion) to achieve the conformity of constituents, much of which have been consequential for their experience of belonging in their so-called identity. To be certain, in observations of this global narrative, what’s witnessed is not a mere phenomenon but the existential reality of the global human condition evolving. Most important for our immediate purpose, what’s witnessed is also the evolving condition of diverse Christians and churches composing global Christianity. Thus, without exception, all Christians and churches must examine the basis for their identity formation and understand how conformity in a comparative system operates for their fitness in faith practice.

Identity formation in any comparative system creates a nexus between conformity and competition—the unavoidable competition to climb up the human scale measured by that comparative system. Competition is the unspoken rule in the comparative process that elevates certain ascribed or achieved distinctions while diminishing other distinctions in their value. Consequently, this ladder of success is fragmenting for persons and relationships, as well as in their collective gatherings, because the formation of identity gets skewed and the identity formed is distorted when competition (explicitly or implicitly) pervades the comparative process. Yet, competition is the accepted or deferred-to practice that is participated in either by choice (even preference) or by default—which includes unspoken participation by Christians and churches. This competition prevailed among Jesus’ disciples, who actively pursued the elevated distinction as “the greatest” (as discussed earlier), with no awareness or understanding that their competition fragments their persons and relationships.

This existential reality is unavoidable and thus undeniable for all Christians and churches: The dynamic of competition is the prevailing human function inherent in the human condition, which is implanted in the identity formation of persons, peoples, tribes and nations that are “scattered over the whole earth.” The diversity of global Christianity competing, as well as conforming, scatters distinctions all over the world, contrary to the primary relational purpose to “fill the earth,” thereby fragmenting persons and relationships, individually and collectively. The roots of the competing comparative process evolving from the primordial garden scattered quickly as Cain competed with Abel (Gen 4:1-12). Soon thereafter, we witness this evolving with the survival concerns of God’s early covenant people, which evolved more diversely in the initial tribes comprising the people of God.

This competitive dynamic invariably had consequential relational results, the variable condition of which continues to evolve globally over the modern world. This consequential competition reverberates in the pervasive and intrusive dynamic of globalization[2]; and this is amplified exponentially on the internet by intense fragmentary engagement in social media.[3] Moreover, the advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) is casting a dark cloud over the future of the world[4]; in modernity, the competitive comparative process has become analogous to a generic code, using algorithms to solve survival issues by making virtual the ontological simulations and functional illusions intrinsic to the comparative process.

The normative global reality that has evolved with the competitive dynamic is this:

Identity becomes the most viable only when it is formed in, by and for the comparative process; all other identities are relegated to a secondary measured value or are rendered simply irrelevant.

The urgent priority in this process, then, even for Christians and churches, is conformity-for-relevance. And what keeps evolving in the global community is this reflexive dynamic:

Conformity enables competition while competition reinforces conforming, and the fragmenting effects of all this repeatedly sustains the global human condition.

The roots of this identity formation have repercussions on belonging, impacting where one belongs and who one belongs to. This existential condition underlies global diversity, from its beginning to the present. Thus, to emphasize again, this is not about global situations merely to manage, but a prevailing global problem needing to be solved principally by Christians and churches in their primary identity rooted in God’s creation (both original and new).

The diverse identities of person, peoples, tribes and nations composing the global context are unlikely a version of the diversity that was ordained to “fill the earth.” As “fruitful” as many appear and however they “multiply,” the diversity that God created goes deeper than evident in these diverse identities. Furthermore, the diversity of God’s people is not clearly distinguished in global Christianity, because the identity of “a multitude of nations” constituted by the covenant relationship ordained by God (Gen 17:1-5) has become opaque. The opacity of identity formation rooted in the comparative process will not be cleared out until the deepest roots of identity are made transparent, and thereby become the primary alternative by choice.

Jesus made definitive this choice facing his followers: “Unless your righteousness—that is, the whole of who, what and how you are in relationship with God—exceeds that of the evolved diversity of God’s people, you will not belong to God’s family” (Mt 5:20). He made this unequivocally clear in order to distinguish the deepest roots of their identity for the primary alternative to the opaque identity prevailing in their faith context. This choice now intrusively challenges Christians and churches in their diversity of choice.

For a new and whole identity formation to unfold involves the necessary functional convergence of identity with righteousness and human ontology in a dynamic process based on God’s grace. This is a necessary fundamental in order to go beyond the reductionism exposed (deconstructed) by Jesus to be whole contrary to fragmentary practice in opaque simulations and illusions of righteousness. This integral process, summarized in the Sermon on the Mount, is composed by the following:

To go beyond reductionism (Mt 5:20), our righteousness necessitates an identity of clarity and depth (5:13-16), which requires the ontology of the whole person; and, in reflexive action, the significance of this process necessitates righteousness to make it functional, which further needs wholeness of identity for our righteousness ongoingly to go beyond the simulations and illusions from reductionism; therefore, this must by nature involve the human ontology created in the image and likeness of the whole of God—all of which are constituted by the whole of God’s relational work of grace, functionally signifying the relational basis of whose we are.

This process of integrally interrelated function is crucial for our understanding and practice, which Jesus illuminated in the beatitudes to establish his followers in his call to be redefined, transformed and made whole.

Our identity serves the key defining purpose that highlights who and what we are, and thus how to function. Just as the early disciples struggled with their identity—vacillating between what they were in the broader collective context and who they were as Jesus’ followers—the formation of our identity is critical for following Jesus in order both to establish qualitative distinction from common function and to distinguish who, what and how we are with others in any broader context.

Despite pervasive identity crises that seem to be a routine part of identity formation, Jesus focused on two major issues making our identity problematic (Mt 5:13-16). These directly interrelate to what has been discussed in this chapter. The two major issues are:

Christian identity, namely as Jesus’ followers, must have both clarity and depth: first, to establish qualitative distinction from prevailing common function (notably from reductionism) in surrounding contexts, and, secondly, to distinguish the qualitative significance of our whole person (what, who and how we are) in relationship with others. These two identity issues of ambiguity and shallowness, therefore, need our honest attention and have to be addressed in our ongoing practice, if our righteousness is going to function beyond reductionism.

In these metaphors of the light and the salt, Jesus was unequivocal about the identity of his followers: “You are…” (eimi, the verb of existence), and thus all his followers are accountable to be (not merely to do) “the light of the world” and “the salt of the earth.” Other than as a preservative in the ancient world, it is not clear what specific function the salt metaphor serves—perhaps as peace (cf. Mk 9:50). But as a seasoning (“becomes tasteless,” moraine, v.13, cf. Col 4:6), this metaphor better suggests simply the distinct identity of Jesus’ followers that cannot be reduced and still be “salt”; and, in further distinction, who cannot be uninvolved with others (e.g. keeping relational distance) and still qualitatively both reflect the vulnerable involvement of Jesus as the Truth and Life and illuminate the relational Way as “light.” This is not an optional identity, and perhaps not an identity of choice, but it is unmistakably the identity that comes with the reciprocal relationship with Jesus and the function as his followers.

Yet, in existential function identity formation can either become ambiguous or have clarity, can remain shallow or have depth. The identity formation from following a popular Jesus, for example, becomes ambiguous because the Christology lacks the qualitative significance of the whole of God and also lacks the qualitative depth uniquely distinguished from common function. Consequently, the Christian subculture this generates becomes shallow, without the depth of the whole person in the image of the whole of God nor the primacy of intimate relationships together in likeness of the Trinity; this is not only a functional issue but affects human ontology at its roots.

The integrity of identity as Jesus’ followers is a relationship-specific process engaged in the practice of the contrary culture clearly distinguished from prevailing cultures (including popular Christian subcultures), which Jesus embodied definitively in his sanctified life and practice and outlined in the Sermon on the Mount. Clarity and depth of his followers’ identity is rooted integrally in (1) what we are in the progression of functional reciprocal relationship with Jesus, and thus (2) who we become intimately connected with the Father in his family together, as we cooperatively work with the Spirit in (3) how we ongoingly function—all on the basis of the Trinity’s irreducible and nonnegotiable relational terms.

The clarity of the light and the depth of the salt are the relational outcome of this ongoing intimate relationship with the Trinity. Any identity formed while maintaining distance from this relationship (which happens even in church) or while competing with this relationship (which happens even in Christian subcultures) diminishes both the fundamental identity of being the whole of God’s very own (“the light”), as well as deteriorates its qualitative substance (“the salt”) to make belonging elusive. Certainly, then, the integrity of who and what is presented to others is crucial to the identity of Jesus’ followers. This core issue makes evident the importance of Jesus interrelating identity with righteousness in conjoint function for the integral relational outcome. While identity gives us the outline of who, what and how we are, righteousness is the functional process that existentially practices what, who and how we are. Identity and righteousness are conjoined to present a whole person in congruence (ontologically and functionally) to what, who and how that person is—not only in Christ but in the whole of God, the Trinity. Righteousness is necessary so that his followers can be counted on to be those authentic persons—nothing less and no substitutes, and thus without opacity.

In the beginning of human creation, the Word was present and actively involved, so that “All humans came into being through him, and without him not one human came into being” (Jn 1:1-3). This is the Word who embodied “the image of the living God” (Col 1:15) to restore human ontology and function to the qualitative image and relational likeness of the Trinity (the whole of God). Therefore, the embodied Word solely distinguished the fundamental roots for human identity formation to be constituted in the Trinity’s image and likeness, which he made definitive for any and all who truly “follow me, my whole person embodied from inner out.” The Word’s fundamental roots are outlined in his manifesto for discipleship (the intro to his Sermon on the Mount, Mt 5:1-12).

For the wholeness of his followers, Jesus made definitive the process of identity composition necessary for the clarity and depth of our identity to emerge, grow and mature. The identity of the Word’s embodied new creation and function of new wine (signifying whole ontology and function, cf. Lk 5:33-39)—of persons redefined in who they are and transformed in what they are and how they function—involves a process of identity formation that distinguishes this identity from common incomplete and fragmentary identities in human context, even shaped by the human brain. The outline of this process was clearly distinguished in the beginning of Jesus’ major discourse for his followers. It is vital to keep in mind that the context for his major discourse always remains in his integral call to “follow me” and be whole, thus must be maintained within his call for whole understanding (synesis). We need to see this outline, therefore, distinguished further and deeper than how we commonly interpret the Beatitudes (Mt 5:3-12).

When our identity adequately distinguishes who, what and how we are, there is opportunity to experience wholeness and the satisfaction to be whole—which Jesus points to in the beatitudes with “blessed” (makarios, fully satisfied). The problem, however, with most identities in general and Christian identities in particular is that these identities only inform us of who and what we should be, and thus how we should act. This merely defines what we need to do in order to be associated with that identity without defining our integral ontology. The process then becomes trying to measure up to that identity so that we can achieve definition for our self—an ongoing effort to erase any identity deficit (i.e. from a comparative process). The theological and functional implications of such a process for Christian identity are twofold: First, it counters and hereby nullifies God’s relational work of grace, and then in its place, it substitutes constructing human ontology from self-determination, even with good intentions of serving Christ.

As we discuss identity formation, it seems necessary to distinguish identity formation of the new creation/wine (signifying whole ontology and function) from identity construction. Identity construction describes the human process of quantifying an identity for a measure of uniformity or conformity to some standard or template in the surrounding context (cf. Gen 11:1-4). New wine identity formation involves a qualitative growth and maturation in a reciprocal relational process with God for wholeness (cf. Gen 17:1-2), which Jesus made vulnerably distinct from the surrounding context (Lk 5:33-39). It is problematic if any identity constructions substitute for or are imposed on this identity formation. Therefore, since the ontology of the whole person is a vital necessity for the identity of Jesus’ followers as the new wine, it may require identity deconstruction of many Christian identities to get to this ontology—a necessary process of redemptive change composing Jesus’ call. While any identity deconstruction would not be on the basis of postmodernist assumptions, it has a similar purpose to discredit ontological simulation and functional illusion. Yet, this would not be merely to expose reductionism but to go beyond it for the relational whole of God distinguishing new ontology and function—the necessary process of transformation composing Jesus’ call. The interrelated process describes Jesus’ major relational discourse with his disciples and the whole context of the Sermon on the Mount.

The full context of the Word’s outline of identity formation must always be maintained, because Christian identity without righteousness is problematic, rendered by Jesus as insignificant and useless (5:13). Yet, righteousness without wholeness of identity is equally problematic, which Jesus made a necessity to go beyond reductionism (6:1). The latter often is an issue unknowingly or inadvertently by how “the light” and “the salt” are interpreted. “You are the salt…the light” tend to be perceived merely as missional statements from Jesus of what to do. While this has certainly challenged many Christians historically to serve in missions, it has promoted practices and an identity which do not go beyond the ontological simulations and functional illusions of reductionism. By taking Jesus’ words out of the context of the fundamental whole of his major discourse, they fail to grasp the significance of Jesus’ call to his followers—the extent and depth of which Jesus summarized in this major discourse and increasingly made evident in his whole and uncommon life and practice.

The seriousness of the issues of clarity and depth in our life and practice cannot be overstated. The alternative common in Christian practices of making opaque our identity as “the light” is a critical issue directly related to Jesus’ warning to be acutely aware of functioning with the perceptual-interpretive framework of the reductionists (Lk 12:1, cf. Mt 16:6). This approach (alternative didache, Mt 16:12) involved presenting a performance of a role (viz. hypokrisis), that is, essentially the process of taking on an identity lacking clarity of who, what and how one truly is—which in his discourse Jesus addressed, for example, in the practice of the law and relationships with others (5:21-48; 7:1-5). Yet, as noted earlier of Peter’s hypokrisis, this practice does not preclude the subtlety of a process that could be engaged with good intentions, even inadvertently. Dual identities (e.g., one for different contexts at church and at work) and composite identities (subordinating “the light”) are commonly accepted Christian practices which demonstrate the mindset of reductionism.

Moreover, any identity rooted only in the practice of propositional truth and the moral-ethical content of the law, without being relationally connected with the Truth (cf. “the vine and the branches”) and without ongoing intimate involvement with his whole person (“remain in me,” Jn 15), also does not have the identity integrity of Jesus’ followers. Such disembodied (or de-relationalized) identity lacks depth, despite correct appearances. Any identity of “the salt” without its substantive quality is directly interrelated to another critical issue of persons basically undergoing only limited change in the practice of their faith (viz. metaschematizo, outward change), which was addressed by Jesus (e.g. in Mt 6:1-18) and continues to be a current problem for conversion-sanctification issues. No amount of effort in this outer-in approach to what and who we are will be formative of the qualitative change from inner out (i.e. metamorphoo, transformation) of the whole person, because that is the nature of metaschematizo and a shallow identity. This distinction of metamorphoo from metaschematizo is vital for identity formation (cf. Rom 12:2). Where reductionism prevails, there is no depth of identity and relationship with God, despite even considerable identification and involvement with his truth, law and gospel, all of which have been disembodied and de-relationalized.

This reductionism further involves functionally substituting for the whole person, which has crucial consequences for the ontology of the person. Whenever the perceived ontology of the human person (created in the image of God) is functionally different qualitatively from the whole of God (whose image the person supposedly bears), there is reductionism of the human ontology. This reduced ontology is made evident when the person functions relationally apart (or at some distance) from others (even when serving them), without the primacy of intimate relationships necessary to be whole, thus reflecting a person disembodied from the relational nature of God and from God’s whole as signified in the Trinity. In other words, who, what and how this person is never goes beyond reductionism—remaining within the limits of its ontological simulation and functional illusion.

Jesus’ declarative statements about the clarity of the light and the depth of the salt are definitive for our identity. Yet, they are not a challenge about what to do; such a challenge would not help us go beyond reductionism but further embed us in it. His definitive statements of our identity are an ontological call about what and who to be; that is, the call to be redefined, transformed and made whole in the ontology of the person created in the image of the whole of God, thus also belonging as whose we are. Conjointly, his definitive statements are a functional call about how to be, that is, called as whole persons to function together in the relationships necessary to be whole in likeness of the Trinity.

The beatitudes taken together establish the whole identity of his followers. I affirm that rather than each beatitude understood independently, they constitute interdependent functional characteristics of the fundamental new identity for what, who and how his followers are. Joined together in dynamic function, the beatitudes form the outline of the integral process composing the whole identity formation distinguishing those he called out (ek) of the common’s human contextualization (as he prayed, Jn 17:14-16). Not surprisingly, Jesus began the process by focusing immediately on the ontology of the person and giving us no basis to define our person by what we do or have. Person-consciousness is the only lens that he makes definitive.

Though Jesus was not explicit in the beginning of his discourse about the irreducible importance of the heart, the function of the heart underlies everything he said and all that we engage in (e.g. Mt 5:28; 6:21). The innermost person, signified by the heart, constitutes the qualitative distinguishing the person, such that we cannot assess what and who a person is based merely on aspects from the outer-in self—notably what we do and have in self-consciousness (cf. Mt 15:10-20). Yet, since the latter perception is a prevailing perceptual-interpretive framework and lens for human ontology, whole Christian identity is composed essentially by beginning with the process of redefinition of the person from the inner out. When we functionally address redefining our own person from the inner out, however, we encounter a major difficulty. Once we get past any resistance to a vulnerable look at ourselves from inner out, what is it that we honestly see of our person as we look inside? This can become an issue we may rather dance around.

In the first three beatitudes (Mt 5:3-5) Jesus provides us with the irreplaceable steps in the process composing our identity as the new wine, that is, to functionally establish his followers in his call to be redefined, transformed and made whole, and therefore be clearly distinguished from reductionism. Anything less and any substitutes for these steps will result in a contrary identity (e.g. a hybrid) and likely lead to an identity crisis.

First Beatitude: When we honestly look inside at our person, Jesus said the natural effect would be realization of the condition signified by “poor in spirit” (v.3). This condition is deeper than an identity deficit from a comparative process—for example, feeling bad or less about our self. “Poor” (ptochos) denotes abject poverty and utter helplessness; therefore this person’s only recourse is to beg. Just to be poor (penes) is a different condition from ptochos because this person can still, for example, go out to work for food. Penes may have little but ptochos has nothing at all. Ptochos, Jesus immediately identifies, is the true condition of our evolved humanity, which precludes self-determination and justification generated from a false optimism about our self (Gen 3:4-6). This is human ontology after the primal garden, yet not the full ontology of the whole person that still includes the viable image of God. Without the latter, ptochos would be a worthless person, and this is not Jesus’ focus on the ontology of the person. Nevertheless, ptochos does prevail in human ontology, which is inescapable with false optimism and clearly makes evident the need for God’s relational work of grace. This juxtaposition is what we need to accept both about our person and from God—not only theologically but functionally because anything less than ptochos counters God’s grace, for example, by efforts to measure up, succeed or advance in a comparative process on the basis of self-determination shaped by what we do and/or have. By necessity, however, the ptochos person ongoingly appropriates God’s relational work of grace to relationally belong to the whole of God’s family, as Jesus said, “theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” Yet, ptochos only begins the process of forming this new identity.

This irreplaceable beatitude forms the basis for answering God’s penetrating question “Where are you as a person?”—a response from our innermost, without deflection to or enhancement by secondary identity markers. Those markers keep our innermost unexposed in an opaque identity maintaining relational distance, just as the persons in the primordial garden—“I hid and kept relational distance from you; the situation and she made me do it” (Gen 3:10,12). Most of us are resistant to operate with any self-definition of ptochos, especially if we define ourselves by what we do or have and depend on these secondary markers for our primary identity. We may be able to accept this “spiritually” in an isolated identity but for practical everyday function in the real world, to live with this self-definition is problematic. While any alternatives and substitutes masking our true condition may make us feel less vulnerable, we will never be able to dance completely around the truth of our condition and this reality of human ontology—despite any facts we can present to reinforce these illusions and simulations.

In this first critical step in the formation of the new identity distinguishing his followers, Jesus provided no place or option for self-determination. Who and what we are as his followers is determined only by the function of reciprocal relationship with him as whose we are; and how we are in relationship together is only on his whole relational terms, which constitutes the relationship and thus our identity in God’s grace. By this, Jesus discloses unmistakably that God’s grace demands the vulnerability of nothing less than the ptochos existing in our person (the honesty of heart without opacity) for ongoing relationship together to be whole—the same honesty of heart he strategically disclosed vulnerably to the Samaritan woman (Jn 4:23-24). Without this innermost vulnerability our person does not open and extend our heart to make intimate relational connection with the heart of God to belong to God’s family (“kingdom of God is theirs”), which reflects the self-definition and relational error by the rich young ruler (Mk 10:17-22). Therefore, no substitutes for ptochos—regardless of how acceptable in Christian practice—can serve as a basis for identity formation rooted in the Word.

Second Beatitude: Since the ontology of the person (from inner out) is never static, Jesus extends its dynamic function fundamentally in this next irreplaceable step. When we are indeed ptochos, our honest response to our true condition is to “mourn” (pentheo, lament, grieve, deep sadness, v.4). If we accept our condition as ptochos—and not merely perceive it as penes, that is, a deficit needing to be overcome—then mourning would be the natural response of our heart. Yet, too often we insulate ourselves from such experience, though unknowingly we may get depressed. The tension involves issues of self-worth, which revolve around ptochos in terms of how we see and feel about ourselves. We tend not to recognize this matter because our heart is unaware of experiencing pentheo, likely only feeling insecure of how others perceive us. Of course, we can ignore or reject others’ perceptions by our overestimated self-assessment, which renders these beatitudes inapplicable to our identity.

In this second critical step in the process of identity formation, the person is taken further and deeper toward being redefined, transformed and made whole. This necessitates the functional ontology of the whole person, contrary to a reductionist practice that insulates the heart or keeps it at a distance of diminished involvement. The dynamic necessary is to open our heart and expose the pentheo by fully acknowledging, admitting and confessing our ptochos—which may not only be about one’s own condition but also the evolved condition of humanity in general. The extent of this vulnerability can not only depress but also create despair, that is, if left in this condition.

The ironic influence of reductionism on human ontology is the simulation and illusion to be strong, self-determined, self-sufficient, and accordingly not in need of redefinition and transformation. This prevailing condition also subtly pervades Christian contexts, which then evolves in diverse adaptations in order to “survive” as fit or fittest. In contrast and conflict, persons who pentheo address reality without reducing the person, yet not in self-pity but by vulnerably opening their whole person to God and not just a fragmented spirit (as in only the soul). In this vulnerable relational process, their whole person is presented to God for comfort, healing, cleansing, forgiveness, and deeper involvement, so they can experience God’s intimate response—as Jesus assured “they will be comforted” (parakaleo, term used for every kind of call to a person that is intended to produce a particular effect).

As Jesus further relationally disclosed ongoingly in his sanctified uncommon identity, the whole of God is relationally vulnerable to our humanity, and we must (dei) relationally reciprocate in likeness with what and who we are in our innermost. Functional intimacy in relationship by its created nature involves hearts open to each other and coming together. Intimacy with God, therefore, necessitates by nature that our heart functions in its true humanity (as “in spirit and truth,” Jn 4:24)—nothing less and no substitutes. The process from the first beatitude to the second engages this qualitative relational involvement that Jesus calls us to experience parakaleo in intimate relationship together. And these two irreplaceable steps involve the relational moments we extend our person to God the most openly and hereby give him the best opportunity to be with us—parakaleo not from outer in but for our ontology inner out as the only relational outcome.

Since identity is rooted in whose we are (e.g. culturally or socially), its formation is contingent on the ongoing function of this vulnerable intimate relationship. Belonging to God involves an irreducible and nonnegotiable relationship for our identity’s further and deeper growth. While pentheo defines only a degree of experience relative to each person—no set quantity of sackcloth and ashes—God does not let us remain in a state of gloom and perhaps fall into depression or despair. God’s thematic relational action never unilaterally allows for human ontology to remain in reductionism but only functions to make us whole. As Jesus did with tax collectors, a prostitute and others lacking wholeness, he extends God’s relational work of grace to us in our helplessness, pursues us vulnerably in the poverty of our humanity, redeems us (the parakaleo mainly from the common’s enslavement of reductionism) back to his family (on the relational terms of the Uncommon), therefore transforms our whole person for intimate relationship with the Father, and formally by covenant (through adoption) constitutes us as his very own children permanently belonging to the whole of God’s family (“theirs is the kingdom of heaven”). This relational process defines God’s thematic relational response only as family love—the vulnerable process of relational involvement based on the whole of God’s relational work of grace. The relational outcome of the Word’s vulnerable relational process continues as the basis for God’s new creation family to experience now even further and deeper in whole relationship together as the church until eschatological completion of God’s whole. This operationalizes the relational progression constituted by Jesus in his tactical shift of direct face-to-face relational connection for the primacy of relationship together, the ongoing function of which he summarized in this major discourse to compose the new identity of the persons in his call.

Third Beatitude: The experiential truth of this relational reality is not usually functional in a linear process as it is reflexive (back and forth). God’s thematic relational response and ongoing vulnerable involvement with our created humanity and evolved condition, most vulnerably disclosed in the incarnation, illuminate the experiential truth to demonstrate this relational reality: the faithfulness and righteousness of the whole of God whom we can count on to trust intimately in reciprocal relational process—the primary relational work (singular) of trusting him whom God has sent (Jn 6:29). As we go up and down, in and out in our ptochos and pentheo, the initial relational experiences of God’s family love rightfully conclude with only one understanding of our person. This understanding forms the core function of the redefined self, the new identity of those persons transformed in Christ.

In the interrelated critical steps involved in this process of self-understanding, Jesus defined the core function forming the identity of his followers: “the meek” (praus, v.5). While the sense of meekness should not be separated from ptochos, praus (prautes, noun) denotes to be gentle—that is, not hard or resistant to live as one truly is. Praus involves heart function conjoined with overt behavior to demonstrate what and who one is from inner out. Contrary to most perceptions of “meek,” this function is not timid weakness but humble strength and truth of character based on one’s true condition. How this specifically would be demonstrated or expressed can be defined best by the various behaviors of Jesus with others. Whatever its form in a particular situation, the most significant issue is that there is no lie or illusion about one’s person in being meek (including being humble).

Yet, meekness is not simply a characteristic of the Christian person by which to be defined and thus to behave, for example, as an identity marker. Though commonly seen and practiced in this way, this only simulates humility from outer in. Rather, most importantly for the whole person, it is a function of relationship both with God and with others. Being meek is a core function in relationship with God for two reasons: (1) with no illusions about self-determination and justification (ptochos) and with response to one’s pentheo, the only basis and ongoing functional base for the person’s life and practice is the whole of God’s relational work of grace—the depth of relational significance composing sola gratio; and (2) on this basis, relationship together is only on God’s terms, hence irreducible and nonnegotiable by human persons. God does not work by any human agenda, notably for self-determination and justification. Being meek is this core function involving the relational process of turning away from the falsehood in self-autonomy and entrusting one’s whole person to the grace of God—the depth of relational significance composing sola fide. This is basic not only for conversion but for ongoing sanctification, though never on the basis of unilateral relationship controlled by God but only for reciprocal relationship.

Furthermore, who and what this meek-humble person is and how this person functions also must by nature be involved in relationship with others in two qualitatively distinguished ways: (1) With God’s grace as the basis for the person, there is no basis for comparison with others, for climbing any human ladder or one-upmanship in competition, and accordingly no basis for stratified relationships that reduce the whole person to fragmentary distinctions, but rather a qualitative loving involvement with others (without employing reductionist distinctions) in the relationships necessary for wholeness; and (2) therefore this relational involvement allows no basis for the function of individualism, which gives priority to the individual agenda and reduces the primacy of the intimate relationships necessary to be God’s whole. Praus then is a clear integral function only of ontological humility, relational humility as well as epistemic humility (cf. Paul’s critique of the church, 1 Cor 4:7; 8:1-2).

Meekness is the direct relational outcome of the first two irreplaceable steps (beatitudes) fundamentally signifying the above functions of relationships. There is no theological or functional basis for any other self-assessment, regardless of how much one does, has or accomplishes. Yet, we encounter difficulty when lies (e.g. alternative facts) or illusions (e.g. alternative or virtual realities) keep us from facing our ptochos or experiencing our pentheo. In strong contrast, being meek also signifies a functional admission of one’s enslavement—that is, not being free from some form of self-sufficiency (even in a collective context), self-determination (even with a theology of grace), or self-centeredness (even in acts of service), all composing self-consciousness—and one’s need for redemption.

Jesus said the meek “will inherit the earth.” This is not a result of what they do but only a relational outcome constituted in relationship with Jesus and by his relational work of grace with the relational outcome of belonging to God’s family. These beatitudes have roots in the promise from the OT covenant, yet Jesus was not taking us back into that context but extending and fulfilling God’s thematic relational action. The meek's inheritance is not the earth per se (or land, cf. Ps 37:11), with a sense of redistribution for the poor and dispossessed. This inheritance is not about a place, situations or circumstances. This is about the distinguished context of God’s whole and dwelling, the relational context in which their inheritance is the whole of God for relationship—just as it was for the OT priests and Levites (Nu 18:20, Dt 10:9).

The meek (as the poor in spirit, and so forth) are “blessed” (makarioi), that is, fully satisfied, because God is vulnerably present and intimately involved in their life—the relational outcome of God’s definitive blessing (Num 6:24-26). Therefore, this is about well-being and wholeness experienced as the relational outcome of God’s covenant love and faithfulness, of the embodied Word’s vulnerable grace and truth (Jn 1:14), that is, as with the Trinity who is intimately involved together in their “spirit and truth”—nothing less and no substitutes.

Thus, this blessed relational condition cannot be reduced merely to happiness about one’s situation and circumstances; everyday life is not reduced to our situations and circumstances. In this redefinition of self, the irreducible importance of our whole person (from inner out) and the nonnegotiable priority of intimate relationship together become the perceptual-interpretive framework for what we pay attention to. And the full relational significance of being makarioi is the ongoing relational outcome of these and the rest of the beatitudes in the integral process of new wine identity formation as the new creation.

These initial alternative roots formative for identity formation are in contrast to and conflict with the comparative process prevailing for identity formation. To counter this reductive human condition requires the resolve of a whole theological anthropology and the ongoing functional vulnerability of a strong view of sin, both of which are essential to expose the opacity of ontological simulations and functional illusions. This requires identity to be rooted in what is uncommon from what common-ly prevails, in order for “your righteousness to exceed that of the evolved diversity.” This essential distinction makes this uncommon identity to be distinguished as the minority in any and all surrounding human contexts—even for white Christians in the global North. Obviously, in a comparative system, such an identity would always be measured as less, whose value can never rise under those parameters. To live in such a common context is consequential for the existential reality of belonging, defining where one belongs and determining who one belongs to. This illuminates that the where and who of belonging is inseparable from identity, and that they always interact symbiotically to be the determinative key for persons and relationships. What emerges or evolves from this interaction is contingent on its context.

Belonging can be a social and/or relational reality, and its existential condition depends on its surrounding context. Belonging, however, in that context must have a depth of qualitative significance in order to be satisfying for the whole person in relationship together—that is, unless persons defer and just conform to that context. Since

we all live in a sociocultural context, it is important to understand which side exerts the formative influence or determinative control over the other—our context or ourselves. The direction of influence and control is an ongoing problem for global Christianity to be distinguished from human diversity. And no matter the nature of the surrounding context, Christian diversity is accountable for the volitional choice that each diverse segment is responsible to exercise.

There is another reality in life that all of us encounter: When you are exposed to something long enough, it tends to be accepted as true even though originally it may not have been, or at least its validity was initially in question.^{^[5]} Likewise, when Christians have heard a variation of the Good News long enough, it often becomes their accepted gospel even though the variation was, in effect, an alternative reality—perhaps fake news based on alternative facts. The reality we are faced with here is the commonizing influence of human life and its specific commonization of the gospel and its outcome of fragmenting disciples and their discipleship. In other words, the common existing in human life in general and in our surrounding context in particular has become the prevailing determinant shaping our practice if not our theology

There is a growing trend in theology today that affirms the diversity of biblical views in the global church. For example, this affirmation is highlighted in a recent issue of Fuller Theological Seminary’s magazine, which the then provost, dean and biblical scholar Joel Green introduced with the following: “we bring ourselves, with all of the textures and hues and flourishes of our humanity, to the Bible. We inhabit Scripture in different ways. Scripture challenges us and encourages us in different ways.” Green embraces this diversity with the conclusion: “Taken together, though—by the church across time and around the globe—we are drawn closer to hearing and understanding the big picture of what God is saying and doing through his Word.”^{^[6]}

One of the theological benefits of listening to global voices is the chastening effect it has on Western theology, and the corrective efforts made on the West’s imperialism in Christian theology and practice throughout the global church. On the other hand, there is a clarification and correction also needed for this diversity in order not to reflect, reinforce and repeat the same epistemological, hermeneutic, ontological and relational shortcomings that commonly compose Western theology and practice, both past and present. Before we can celebrate diversity in the global church, we must (1) be accountable for the biased influence we all exert from our particular surrounding contexts that has shaped us in the process of contextualization—the contextualized bias. Then, we must deeper still (2) be redeemed from the biased influence we all demonstrate from the common’s reductionism composing the human context, which has had the subtle primacy to define our ontology and determine our function in the process of commonization—the commonized bias. The process of contextualization has been misunderstood in our theology and practice, and the process of commonization has been ignored or simply resigned to or accepted as an assumed reality. The consequence has been continued distortions rendered by our contextualized and commonized biases, the diverse views of which we cannot assume to be acceptable or appropriate different angles of God’s big picture.

In the early contextualized history of God’s people, divergent views already were evolving. On the one hand, God’s people experienced trials and tribulations in their surrounding context, which formed a subtle contextualized bias because, for example, “outsiders defiled the dwelling place of your Name” (Ps 74:7, NIV). With their bias, on the other hand, they failed to perceive how their faith practice also essentially defiled God’s dwelling place (as in Isa 29:13). “Defile” (halal) desecrates the holy distinctly by making it common, whereby the uncommon is not distinguished existentially. In their biased perceptual-interpretive lens, they didn’t understand how they became commonized to bias their lens even more profoundly (e.g. Eze 5:11). Can you imagine how this commonized bias has evolved in the diversity of global Christianity?

In order to affirm any interpretation of Scripture emerging from a particular context, we must account for its contextualized bias and ensure that that bias has not gained primacy over God’s relational context, and thereby gained hermeneutic (interpretive) control over the relational terms and process of God’s Word. In God’s communicative action disclosed by the embodied Word, the text of the Bible was never composed apart from God’s relational context; and the nonnegotiable primacy of God’s context always renders interpretation of the text contingent not on the diversity of readers but on the whole relational terms of God’s relational process to engage us in relationship together. The presumed primacy given to any form of our contextualized bias prevents this relational connection with God to understand what and who God discloses in the human context, and how God is involved both with us and in the big picture—namely, the whole who, what and how of God constituting his righteousness. Most important, our commonized bias either limits or prevents us from seeing the full profile of God’s face, and from experiencing the vulnerable presence and relational involvement of God face to face. How, then, can there be the relational outcome rather than a relational consequence?

Contrary to Green’s assumption above, understanding God’s big picture—the integrating process of syniemi (cf. Mk 8:17-21)—does not emerge from the global quantity of diverse interpretations; nor is this understanding gained from the sum of global diversity, a sum without the synergy of God’s big picture. In his above introduction, Green uses Justo Gonzalez’s metaphor of looking at a landscape for reading the Bible. Since we all see the landscape differently, seeing only parts of it without seeing the whole landscape, Green insists on the need to take all the views together for the big picture. Yet, I assert that a landscape is an incongruent metaphor both for the face of God who is present and involved, and for what is necessary to have the full profile of God’s face that composes the integral news of the whole gospel. The full profile of God’s face in the big picture consists of neither various portraits nor a collection of snapshots that could be taken from the Bible. All of us see the same face if we indeed see God without the control of our bias; we may not all emphasize or like the same features of the Face but we still see the same Face. As with viewing any person, if we don’t see the same Face we are in effect viewing another God—whom we cannot count on to be “the same yesterday and today and forever for all of us in the faith” (Heb 13:8).

We all certainly are not alike and have distinct differences either created or evolved. This diverse condition nevertheless still involves only secondary aspects of our identity, aspects which are typically expressed by what signify ‘the veil’ of our identity—the prevailing opaque identity of human life. To be involved, however, in relationship together with the Face in the primacy of face to face requires the veil of all our secondary differences to be removed, so that “all of us with unveiled faces…are being transformed into the same image and likeness of the Trinity for face-to-face relationship together” (as Paul made definitive, 2 Cor 3:18). As long as the veil of our differences remains, we do not have the relational connection to know and understand the full profile of the Trinity’s presence and involvement, nor are we in our persons, relationships and churches transformed into the Trinity’s image and likeness. And, in spite of any avoidance or denial of the existing reality of the veil, the inescapable relational consequences are fragmentary theology and practice in the condition of reduced ontology and function. Even then, these consequences are likely engaged in ontological simulations and functional illusions that are presumed to be correct and significant but are not on the same relational path as the embodied Word, and thus that in effect reflect, reinforce and sustain the human relational condition.

In other words, therefore, we cannot affirm any interpretation of Scripture until this clarification and correction are made by the whole relational terms and process of the Word, whose ongoing relational outcome puts the process of contextualization into its primary context and exposes the process of commonization for its transformation to wholeness. What integrally unfolds to negate the bias for (as in affirming) the common is the distinguished bias against the common—that is, the distinguishing bias with-in the uncommon.

The bias for the common is most evident in an underlying theological anthropology that subtly defines our persons and determines our relationships by reduced ontology and function. Reduced ontology and function is the common condition prevailing in all human contexts, without exception, and this inclusiveness is seductive or at least susceptible to being accepted as the norm even among Christians throughout the global church. This bias has been able to be sustained because underlying our reduced theological anthropology is a weak view of sin that does not encompass what Jesus saved us from. This inadequate view, which is the same lens underlying common views of diversity in the church, does not acknowledge or cannot recognize the full scope of sin in its evolving counter-relational workings of reductionism. Therefore, this bias commonizes our ontology and function to the existing comparative measures of our human contexts.

Thus, the perception of global Christianity’s diversity must recognize this existential reality encompassing all contexts. Each diverse context has its own secondary variation of this reduced condition, but all contexts have in common this underlying reduced ontology and function that define their persons and determine their relationships in the common’s fragmentary terms contrary to the uncommon’s whole terms. There is no basis for affirmation of diversity in the global church as long as this bias for the common exists; and there will be no celebration of the global church until this commonized bias has been transformed to the distinguishing bias with and in the Uncommon.

God declared, not to inform us but to clarify, correct and challenge us: “You thought that I was one just like yourself” (Ps 50:21). God exposed this alternative or virtual reality among his people, which continues to exist today, not explicitly in our theology but implicitly in our practice. The essential reality is that “I am holy” (qādôsh, Lev 11:44), who is separate from what is common and thus distinctly set apart from the common. Therefore, God is vulnerably present only as uncommon and is relationally involved only by God’s wholeness. Anything less and any substitutes from human shaping make the whole-ly (contraction of whole and holy) God’s presence and involvement indistinguishable. Forming God’s identity in our common images has unavoidable relational consequences, notably experiencing the relational reality and outcome of God’s definitive blessing for his family (Num 6:24-26). The whole profile of God’s holy face is distinguished by nothing less and no substitutes.

The prevailing alternative reality reconstructs this essential reality with what is common, thereby reversing the basis for the reality of God and his people in effect with alternative facts (as in Ps 50:9-13). That is, the issue in this effort is not necessarily to “be like God” (as in the primordial garden, Gen 3:5) but rather this two-fold dynamic: (1) Shape God and relationship together subtly in our terms (perhaps in our image), and (2) determine our person as Jesus’ disciples and our life in discipleship indirectly through the bias of our terms. The insurmountable difference that God magnifies is that God is whole and uncommon (whole-ly) in ontology and function, while the terms of our ontology and function are fragmentary and common.

The whole-ly God’s presence and involvement are distinguished only by the dynamic of nothing less and no substitutes. Our terms subtly engage in the reverse dynamic of anything less and any substitutes, which is assumed by our underlying bias influenced by the common. This commonized bias, for example, was evident when Samuel picked out the successor to lead God’s kingdom; but the LORD clarified and corrected him with the essential reality that “whole-ly God does not see as humans see and give priority accordingly” (1 Sam 16:6-7). In technical terms, our bias presumes that God sees and thinks analogously to a human algorithm, which we then can duplicate by our individual and/or collective efforts. This bias emerged from the beginning of human history and set into motion the reverse dynamic of anything less and any substitutes for God’s whole (Gen 3:5-7). Our terms today are merely modern substitutes, which at best can only simulate God’s dynamic of nothing less and no substitutes with illusions in our theology and practice. The difference in these opposing dynamics was clearly demonstrated between Mary and the other disciples, and this also clarifies, corrects and challenges the reality of our identity as disciples in our discipleship (see Jn 12:1-8; Mk 14:3-9).

Therefore, God unmistakably distinguished the uncommon as incompatible with the common and thus as incongruent in the common. On this basis, it is imperative that we “be uncommon for I am uncommon” (Lev 11:44)—set apart from the common by being distinguished with-in the Uncommon. This clarification and correction critically composes the distinguishing bias with and in the Uncommon, who challenges the identity of who, what and how we are in order to be incompatible with the common and incongruent in the common—rather than an identity “just like yourself.”

To be compatible with the Uncommon and congruent in the uncommon of God is determined only by the whole relational terms of God’s relational process. This means that to be uncommon (or holy) is not about perfection—as in spiritually, morally, ethically, and thereby to misunderstand sanctification—but connection, that is, relational connection that is compatible with the Uncommon because it is congruent in the uncommon of God. When perfection is integrated with being sanctified, it then has an integral place in our practice to be holy and also whole (inseparably whole-ly); but its theology must not be composed with a commonized bias of idealized notions, which includes such notions about righteousness.

The book of Hebrews discipleship manifesto clarifies that the relational progression of Jesus’ relational work has sanctified us in the uncommon (Heb 10:10); and the relational outcome of this relational progression is to “make perfect” (teleioo) “those who are being made uncommon” (Heb 10:14, NIV). Teleioo means to complete the relational purpose of Jesus’ relational work, which is fulfilled by wholeness in relationship together. The whole-ly relational process is the only way, truth and means to this relational outcome of teleioo. In his manifesto for discipleship, Jesus made

imperative for our practice the relational work to “be complete, mature [teleios]” in likeness of how our whole-ly Father is present and involved in uncommon love (Mt 5:45-48). His relational imperative, then, for all disciples is to be whole and uncommon in our relational involvement of family love just as our Father is, in order to distinguish our identity as his daughters and sons belonging in family together. Therefore, perfection is always secondary to the primacy of relational connection with the Uncommon. Yet, this relational connection only happens with-in the Uncommon, which composes the primacy of relationship together distinguished only by the integral relational terms, language, context and process of the whole-ly God.

When Christians are not misguided by misunderstanding perfection, there typically is a common assumption Christians make about relationship with God: Because of God’s grace there is room for our imperfection, and thus there is space to exercise our personal interests, desires and other related terms; likewise, since God is loving and forgiving, there is flexibility in relationship together—if not presuming the relationship is negotiable. Jesus had a contrary approach to such differences. To Peter, Jesus said that he functioned as Satan, because he focused on the common at the expense of the uncommon (Mt 16:23). Jesus added later that Peter had no direct involvement in their relationship together, because Peter gave primacy to the common (as in titles and roles) over the uncommon (Jesus’ vulnerable relational involvement, Jn 13:8).

God’s relational response of grace and relational involvement of love distinguished the uncommon in order for us to be transformed from the common to the whole-ly. Without this relational outcome the influence of the common will pervade and prevail in our persons, relationships and churches—even if by default veiled in our good intentions. The Good News of God’s whole-ly presence and involvement is only for this whole-ly relational outcome (Heb 2:11; 10:10,14), and any variations of this news is not the gospel (as Paul exposed, Gal 1:6-7). Therefore, the Hebrews manifesto makes this relational imperative for discipleship: “Pursue wholeness in your function with everyone, and the uncommon without which no one will see the Lord face to face without the veil in intimate relationship together” (Heb 12:14, cf. 10:20-22).

Hebrews illuminates for all of Jesus’ followers the holy partition in relationship with the whole-ly God, who is inaccessible to anyone or anything common. The holy partition signifies the pivotal juncture in relationship with God. If we haven’t progressed past the holy partition, our relationship with God is influenced, shaped and occupied by the common, and thus subtly engaged in the reverse dynamic of anything less and any substitutes. Claiming the cross does not give us access to face-to-face relationship with the whole-ly God without embracing Jesus’ relational work tearing down the holy partition. Any opaque identity, for example, expressed in worship while celebrating the cross, is an expression made only in front of the holy partition at a relational distance (as Jesus exposed, Mk 7:6-8). Since claiming the cross of the gospel apparently is the prevailing condition among Christians, the commonized bias still in effect has normalized what’s acceptable practice to define disciples and determine their discipleship. This relational condition is unacceptable in the Hebrews manifesto, not to mention exposed, clarified and corrected in Jesus’ manifesto definitive for all his followers (Mt 5-7).

Hopefully, the whole-ly relational outcome of the gospel clarifies, corrects and challenges us to change any common assumptions we have about relationship with God and being Jesus’ disciples. This, however, requires a distinguishing bias that does not defer to the common’s influence. As has been necessary for God’s whole-ly family, “You are to distinguish between the holy and the common” (Lev 10:10, cf. Eze 22:26), with which Peter struggled to come eventually to this relational outcome (1 Pet 1:14-16; 2:9-10).

What is essential to follow whole-ly Jesus is for all disciples to openly have and ongoingly exercise in their discipleship the distinguishing bias emerging from face-to-face relationship with the Uncommon and unfolding unambiguously apart from the common and thus in the uncommon—the distinguishing bias with-in the Uncommon, which does not defer to the common’s influence but integrally exposes any existing bias for the common, and acts against it for transformation to the whole-ly.

It is only in the integral context of the uncommon that Jesus’ followers experience the relational reality of belonging to his whole-ly family. The Word’s irreducible experiential truth and nonnegotiable relational reality must not be confused with just a propositional truth and a mere social reality. Moreover, the Word’s belonging is the experiential reality of his followers’ belonging only when it is inseparable from the identity formed by the Word. Therefore, Jesus completes his process of identity formation in order for their identity to be constituted whole and distinguished uncommon, so that where they belong and who they belong to are indeed where and who he is.

The identity formation that Jesus makes definitive for his followers is not a one-time singular process but a reflexive process throughout their life. Though there are ups and downs experienced, this identity forms in a distinct relational progression that integrally secures belonging in its qualitative depth and ensures its satisfaction for the whole person in relationship together. Nothing less and no substitutes for identity formation can have this relational outcome. This exclusive process disqualifies anything less and any substitutes from the diversity of global Christianity.

Thus, Jesus unfolds the exclusive process of identity formation in the remaining beatitudes to complete the wholeness of identity in the function of his followers:

Fourth Beatitude: Identity formation is an ongoing process of growth and maturation, which is implied in this beatitude. The relational progression for Jesus’ followers implicit in the beatitudes leads us to the next identity function for growing the new wine: “hunger and thirst for righteousness” (Mt 5:6). The experience of the first three beatitudes, which establishes vulnerable involvement with Jesus who takes us to the Father to become a part of his very own family, provides the integral relational process and context of family to understand the fourth beatitude.

In contrast and conflict with reductionism, righteousness is not a mere conformity of actions to a given set of legal and ethical standards (or a template) but about the relational responsibility that is in keeping with reciprocal relationship between God and his people (his family). This relational responsibility is fulfilled only by the whole of who, what and how followers are and thus can be counted on in relationship—that is, the meaning of righteousness. Going beyond reductionism necessitates the shift in righteousness from merely exhibiting character traits and practicing an ethic of right and wrong—our common notions about integrity and being upright—to the distinctly deeper qualitative involvement of what, who and how to be in relationships, both with God and with others. New identity formation of Jesus’ followers necessitates this same shift and becomes inexorably integrated with the process to righteousness for the clarity and depth of their identity. Therefore, this fourth identity function is not a pursuit about ourselves, though it certainly further and more deeply constitutes our ontology and function as his family in an essential process of transformation (the 2^nd process composing his call).

Our definitive and functional understanding of righteousness comes from the righteous God’s action in the context and process of relationship. Righteousness is no static attribute or quality of God but always a dynamic relational function. Righteousness is the immanent relational function of God that all other persons can invariably count on from and with God. By the nature of being righteous, this distinguished involvement is the only way God acts in relationship; moreover, by the nature of being righteous, this ongoing relational involvement is the only way God functions. That is, righteousness is intrinsic to the ontology of what, who and how God is.

“Hunger and thirst” represent the primary acts to sustain life and to help it grow, which is a metaphor for this basic pursuit. To pursue righteousness is to pursue how God is, and accordingly to pursue what and who God is—that is, the ontology of God. In other words, this ongoing pursuit of righteousness is the basic relational process of pursuing God and of becoming like God in relational function, not in ontology (e.g. by some deification). This involves the process of transformation (cf. Eph 4:24) of our whole person (from inner out) to the image of the Son (metamorphoo, 2 Cor 3:18, cf. Rom 8:29; 12:2), who is the image of the whole of God (cf. 2 Cor 4:4). The relational outcome of this process further constitutes our ontology in God’s qualitative image in relational likeness of the Trinity, the function of which in relationship together with no veil makes us whole. The functional purpose of this process of ongoing transformation is only relational: first, for deeper reciprocal relationship together with the whole of God as family, and further, for more deeply representing the Father to extend and to build his family with family love (the immediate relational responsibilities of those adopted by the Father, Eph 1:5, cf. Rom 8:15). This defines the relational significance of the new wine identity and clearly distinguishes that identity formation must include this process of transformation in order to be whole as the new creation.

As these beatitudes interrelate, therefore, pursuing the righteousness that goes beyond reductionism involves not seeking character traits or ethical behavior but vulnerably pursuing the very qualitative and relational innermost of God and compatibly reciprocating to be intimately involved further and deeper in the whole of God’s life (cf. Mt 6:33). Without this qualitative relational significance of righteousness, our identity will merely exhibit shallowness or ambiguity in who, what and how we are in relationships. For those who “hunger and thirst” for the relational righteousness of God, Jesus asserted “they will be filled” (chortazo, to be filled to satisfaction) because their whole persons will experience deeper intimate relationship with the whole of God as family together with no veil making their identity opaque. This is the growth function of identity formation denoted by the fourth beatitude.

Whole understanding and experience of God’s grace emerge in Face-to-face-to Face relationship, with the relational outcome constituted by mercy (compassion) from God and on this relational basis constituted with mercy for others. This ongoing reciprocal relational process, distinguishing the relational outcome of the new wine, further engages the integral process of the new wine identity formation in the remaining beatitudes.

Fifth Beatitude: Jesus’ call to his followers to be redefined, transformed and made whole is increasingly realized by ongoing vulnerable involvement in the whole of God’s relational context of family and the experience of his distinguished relational process of family love. The relational reality of this experience is essential for belonging, which is inseparable from identity. This vulnerable involvement and experience reconstitute how his followers function, not just reform them. Thus, the whole outcome of being the relational recipient of the Trinity’s loving involvement and of experiencing further intimate relationship together cannot remain a private (even within a group) or solely individual matter. If this relational outcome is confined to a private context (personal or collective), it will become ingrown, self-serving, and ambiguous or even shallow, and thus fragmentary. If this outcome is reduced to an individual focus, it will become enslaving, not redeeming and transforming, and consequently incomplete. Therefore, as the relational outcome of life together in wholeness, Jesus necessarily extends the process of identity formation to relationships with others to accentuate the relationally-gathering function of the new creation family. Individualism only scatters in contrast.

With the relational outcome emerging from the previous beatitudes, this next function of identity formation (Mt 5:7) is more than a restatement regarding Levi and Hosea 6:6 (Mt 9:9-13), and of the lawyer and the Good Samaritan (Lk 10:25-37). This function is not merely about mission or fulfilling what is rightfully expected of us. It is integrally focused on the ontology of what persons (his followers) have become (in the relational progression) and on the emerging identity of who they are and whose they are, and thus how they function in relationship—not only with God, not only among themselves, but now also with others.

Mercy (eleos, compassion) denotes action out of compassion for others that responds to their distress, suffering or misery. Yet, such acts can be performed merely out of missional service or Christian duty (opheilo)—perhaps with paternalism, intentional or inadvertent—without the relational involvement of a person who essentially has been in their position (the reflexive reality of the first three beatitudes). With the mercy experienced from God’s relational response of grace, Jesus’ whole followers from inner out become more than good servants but first and foremost become intimate personal recipients (as adopted children) of compassion (Gal 4:4-5; Eph 2:4-5). Accordingly, in reciprocity from this redeemed and transformed ontology, this person functions to extend that compassion in likeness of relational involvement with others—notably with those lacking wholeness (or value) and suffering the relational condition “to be apart” from the whole.

Reductionism would define this beatitude to subtly promote the act and benefits of mercy, not the relational involvement of persons with other persons; consequently, its practice of mercy would signify either paternalism, even with sacrifice, or a quid pro quo in human relations. Jesus, however, leads the process of identity formation deeper in contrast and conflict to go beyond such reductionism. The relational outcome of vulnerably following Jesus in the relational progression constitutes the ontology of the whole person and the relationships necessary to be whole. It naturally follows then: Being compassionate (eleemon) is a given fundamental function in identity formation, not an option; and those persons are blessed (makarios, fully satisfied) because they are relationally functioning with others in qualitative involvement for wholeness and fulfilling God’s relational desires in the innermost for his creation. In the process these persons ongoingly experience deeper compassion themselves, not suggesting their own future problems but the further relational outcome indicated in the next beatitude.

Sixth Beatitude: The deeper compassion the compassionate also experience always involves the relational work of God’s grace. These persons, who are being further redeemed and transformed, are engaged in the process of becoming whole by vulnerable involvement necessarily both from their whole person and in the relationships together constituting the wholeness of God’s creation and the gospel’s new creation. These next two beatitudes outline what is involved in this process to wholeness, and therefore the maturation of our identity (Mt 5:8-9).

The tendency in a context pervaded by reductionism, even though not enslaved by it, is to pay more attention inadvertently to the behavioral/activity aspects of our life and practice. We readily make assumptions about the qualitative presence and involvement of our person in that behavior or activity. A relational context and process, however, make deeper demands on our person; namely, the whole of God’s relational context and process hold us accountable for nothing less and no substitutes than our whole person—the demands of grace. Accordingly, we should never assume the ongoing condition of our heart nor the state of our relationship with the whole of God. Wholeness is contingent on their qualitative function in vulnerable relational terms, which descriptive referential terms cannot account for with relational distance.

A shallow identity lacks depth. A shallow person lacks the presence and involvement of heart (cf. Mt 15:8). Persons lacking heart in function (even inadvertently) lack wholeness. Intimate involvement with the whole of God (i.e. who is unreduced) necessitates an ongoing process of our hearts vulnerably open and coming together—God’s nonnegotiable terms. As discussed previously about the significance of holy, the Uncommon and the common are incompatible for relationship, further necessitating our ongoing transformation to “the pure in heart” (katharos, clean, clear, without opacity, Mt 5:8) to be compatible. This katharos is not a static condition we can merely assume from God’s redemption and forgiveness. God’s relational acts of grace are always for reciprocal relationship, thus “pure in heart” is a dynamic function for deeper relationship to be whole together. This involves a heart functioning clear of any relational barriers or distance, functioning clean of Satan’s reductionist lies, substitutes and illusions—signifying the catharsis of the old to be constituted in the whole of the new. Yet, any subsequent turn from the heart interjects gray matter, making our function ambiguous in an opaque identity.

An ambiguous identity lacks clarity. An ambiguous person lacks clarity of one’s ontology. Christians lacking ontological clarity lack the qualitative distinguishing them from the common’s function in the surrounding context, notably from reductionism. Being distinguished includes from the mindset, cultural practices and other established ways prevailing in our contexts, which we assume are compatible with God but effectively shift relationship with the holy God to our common terms (cf. Rom 8:5-6). When the identity and ontology of the Uncommon cannot be clearly distinguished from this common function (even in a Christian subculture), this generates ambiguity in our identity and counteracts wholeness for our ontology—which increasingly becomes life and practice determined in a new normal without the whole person and without the primacy of intimate relationships necessary to be whole (cf. Col 3:15). The theological implication is that the Uncommon and common can neither coexist in functional harmony nor can their functions be combined in a hybrid. The functional implication is that the tension between them must by nature always be of conflict, the nature of which is ongoing and, contrary to some thinking, irremediable. Therefore, “pure in heart” also signifies catharsis of the common to be constituted in the whole of the Uncommon.

The function of the depth of this person’s heart will have the relational outcome to more deeply “see God.” The significance of “see” (horao) implies more than the mere act of seeing but involves more intensively to experience, partake of, or share in something, be in the presence of something and be affected by it. This depth of significance in “seeing” God in the substantive quality of relationship is the intimate process of hearts functionally vulnerable to each other and further coming together in deeper involvement to be whole—the purpose of Jesus’ sanctified life and practice and formative family prayer (Jn 17:19-26). When our ongoing experience (not necessarily continuous) with God is not horao, we need to examine honestly where our heart is and address any assumptions. If, for example, we don’t dance around our ptochos and pentheo, our heart will respond with greater functional trust and vulnerable intimacy—the relational posture of submission to God’s whole relational terms signified by meekness. It is only when we presume to enact or ignore this inner-out aspect of our person that we essentially keep relational distance from God, hereby impeding the process to be whole and the relational outcome of the new wine signifying the whole ontology and function of the new creation. Unfortunately, presuming and ignoring readily become our default condition, which is always consequential for the heart.

The early disciples’ struggles were essentially with heart issues, and consequently they had difficulty seeing (horao) God even in Jesus’ vulnerable presence (Jn 14:7-9). Without a clean and clear heart there will be shallowness in our identity formation and ambiguity in the ontology and function of our person (both individually and together) in ongoing relationship with the whole of God. The catharsis of both the old and common make the sixth beatitude pivotal as the contingency function in the process to be whole and for the maturation of our identity as the new creation persons composed in Jesus’ call.

Yet, wholeness is never about only the individual person, nor about just the person with God. The next beatitude extends the process.

Seventh Beatitude: While this beatitude (Mt 5:9) integrated with the sixth outlines the process to wholeness, it is also conjoined with the fifth beatitude for the person made whole to function in the relationships necessary to be whole. As the process of the new wine identity formation engages others in relationship, there emerges a distinguished presence and involvement that is neither ambiguous nor shallow. Yet this beatitude is often not fully understood or integrally enacted.

Peace is generally perceived without its qualitative significance and with a limited understanding of the relational involvement constituting it. As noted previously about Jesus approaching Jerusalem in his triumphant entry, he agonized over its condition: “If you, even you, had only recognized on this day the things that make for peace” (Lk 19:41-42). “The things that make for peace” is a core issue focused on what belongs to peace, and thus by necessity involves the persons who bring this peace, not just the work of peace.

In the classical Greek sense peace is perceived as the opposite of war. The NT, however, does not take its meaning of peace from this source; its concept of peace is an extension from the OT and of the Hebrew shalom. The opposite of shalom is any disturbance to the well-being of the community. That is, the Word’s peace is not defined in negative referential terms by the absence of any conflict but in positive relational terms by the presence of a specific condition of ontology and function. Throughout the Bible the primary concept of peace is well-being and wholeness. Peace is a general well-being that has both an individual dimension and a corporate/collective dimension. This wholeness extends to all aspects of human life and by necessity included salvation and the end times but it certainly is insufficient to limit it to the latter. Going beyond the mere absence of negative activity, all of this involves what must be present for peace; this is what belongs to peace, which typically is more than commonly understood or even wanted (discussed further in Chap. 4).

The whole gospel is clearly affirmed by this peace (cf. Acts 10:36; Eph 6:15). This is the peace in which Jesus constituted his followers, and distinguished from conventional peace prevailing in the common’s contexts (Jn 14:27). It is thus insufficient to signify the gospel of peace with a truncated soteriology (only what Jesus saved us from) without the relational outcome of what he saved us to. The whole gospel’s salvation necessitates the relationships together of the whole of God’s family in which Jesus constituted his followers to be whole as the new creation. Wholeness is intrinsic to this peace, and to be whole is a necessary relational condition for those who bring this peace. Who then are the peacemakers?

Their identity is clearly defined by Jesus as the sons and daughters of God (v.9), not God’s servants but the Father’s very own children (cf. v.44-45). This tells us not only who and what they are but whose they are and how they are as peacemakers.

The adopted children of God have been made whole in God’s family and partake of the new wine communion together with the whole-ly God without the veil. As whole persons receiving the whole-ly God’s relational work of grace, it is insufficient for God’s children merely to share mercy (compassion) with others. It is also insufficient for them merely to engage in the mission (however dedicated) to reduce violence, stop war or create the absence of conflict. On the basis of the ontology of who they are and whose they are, how they function to clearly reflect the depth of their wholeness—thus the relational responsibility to represent the Father and to continue to extend his family—this integrally involves a deeper level of relational involvement. “Peacemakers” (eirenopoios) denotes reconcilers, those who seek the well-being and wholeness of others, just as they experience (cf. 2 Cor 5:17-18). The reciprocal nature of the process of peacemaking is both a necessary and sufficient condition for peacemakers. This means not only to address conflict but to restore relationships in the human condition to wholeness, just as God’s thematic relational action and the relational work of the Trinity engage. Such involvement can only be vulnerable by the whole person from inner out, and thereby renders any participation in peacemaking with relational distance to be (perhaps arguably) insufficient, inadequate and even contrary to peace.

In these seven beatitudes Jesus defined the natural relational flow from repentance to redemption to reconciliation to wholeness. Jesus functioned vulnerably in this relational flow and ongoingly engaged the relational work necessary for its relational progression to be whole. While peace describes interpersonal relationships only in a corollary sense, the condition of wholeness and well-being is the new relational order of the new creation as the whole of God’s family (as Paul made definitive, Eph 2:14-22; Col 3:15). Peace, therefore, is a necessary condition for the relational outcome of the new wine. Moreover, each emerging act of reconciliation and peacemaking must function in the same natural relational flow to become whole. This will further the relational process to wholeness for others and will deepen the wholeness of those so engaged, and therefore the maturation of the distinguished clarity and depth of their identity.

Having stated this unequivocally, the experiential truth and relational reality of this wholeness is also intrusive to others, which is unavoidable for those following Jesus’ relational path. And though it may seem counterintuitive, engaging in his peacemaking will evoke negative reactions from others in surrounding contexts and even in Christian contexts, thus the eighth beatitude.

Eighth Beatitude: The existential reality for human life and practice is that reductionism prevails; and not everyone is seeking resolution to the human relational condition “to be apart” from the whole. Consequently, in this last function of their whole-ly identity Jesus made clear to his followers the repercussions of being composed in his call to be redefined, transformed and made whole: the function of this new ontology in relational involvement with others will encounter strong negative reaction “for righteousness’ sake…on my account” (vv.10,11). Identity formation of his followers remains incomplete until they experience this consequence of their ontology and function in the world, which may include some Christian subcultures. That is to say, the relational outcome of the new wine includes this repercussion in human contexts, because by its essential nature it is intrusive to the human shaping of persons and relationships together.

Along with the benefits and responsibilities of belonging to his family as one of the Father’s very own, this consequence is another given unavoidable function in their identity. These repercussions are not the result of being doctrinaire, condescending or otherwise relationally uninvolved, though Christians certainly have experienced reactions for these reasons, justifiably or not. Nor are these reactions against only certain servants of God—for example, a frequent reduced perception of prophets (v.12). These are the relational reactions from others to God’s children who are functioning whole in their reciprocal relational responsibility (“for righteousness’ sake”) as the Father’s very own to extend the whole of God’s family (“theirs is the kingdom”) to others in the relational righteousness of family love vulnerably constituted by Jesus (“on my account”). This reaction comes with the intrusive significance of being the new wine, which will emerge in his call to be whole, live whole, and to make whole.

This last beatitude is the consequence of both the qualitative distinguishing the ontology of God’s people and the relational involvement of their function, both of which intrude in the human context. Just as the prophets and Jesus experienced, this is the relational outworking of the identity of being in God’s family and intimately involved with the whole and holy God (the Uncommon). This may be a difficult identity function to embrace, and so in our thinking we may tend to limit it to unique situations for only a minority of Christians. Yet, the relational reality is inescapable that not only is the qualitative distinguishing the Uncommon incompatible with the common function but in conflict with it also; anything less reduces the ontology of the Uncommon and those who have become uncommon. And relational reactions from the common function will come in all forms and varying degrees (even within Christian diversity) as long as the uncommon relationally extend themselves to the common with a critique of hope for change.

To avoid those reactions is to reduce our ontology and function to a level more ambiguous and shallow, likely more practical and acceptable in surrounding contexts. To function as a peacemaker, for example, merely by being irenic, consensus building and unity forming is insufficient, and tends to become the ontological simulations and functional illusions of reductionism shaped in a hybrid theology. This beatitude’s last function integral in identity formation completes the process of being whole, both individually and together as family, in the human context suffering the relational condition “to be apart” from the wholeness of God’s creation. The repercussions are an integral part of the new wine fellowship, which Paul was blessed to participate in with Jesus and desired to grow in further and deeper (Col 1:24; Rom 8:17; 2 Cor 1:5; 4:10; Phil 3:10). Nothing less and no substitutes for this whole define the new wine identity and determine its relational outcome as the whole-ly God’s new creation family. Anything less and any substitutes for wholeness of our identity lack the clarity and depth for our righteousness to go beyond the reductionism that Jesus made imperative for his followers in this major discourse (Mt 5:20). The resulting ambiguity and shallowness will neither be fully satisfying (makarios, “blessed”), nor be taken seriously in the world.

As the consequential function of the new wine identity, this beatitude must not be taken lightly or be lost in our identity formation; to do so is integrally consequential for the relational outcome of the new wine, which will not emerge within the limits and constraints of old wineskins.

The above eight beatitudes are the interdependent functions that together formulate our whole identity in who, what and how we are as Jesus’ followers and whose we become in the relational progression as his family—therefore distinguishing the ontology of the person and the whole. The beatitudes taken separately are problematic for makarios (fully satisfied, beyond being merely happy), since some beatitudes seen individually strain to be defined as blessedness. Moreover, any beatitude by itself does not yield the relational outcome connected to it. Blessedness is synonymous with wholeness, and to be fully satisfied emerges only from vulnerable involvement in the whole-ly God’s life, who tore open the holy partition and has removed the veil for intimate relationship together.

The beatitudes together, however, are only the outline of the integral process of identity formation. Functionally, this process immediately addresses the whole person by opening our heart to be redefined. In the relational process, Jesus (in conjoint function with the Spirit) redeems us from the old (and the common) and transforms us to the new (and the uncommon) to be made whole in relationship together with the whole-ly God, whereby to function whole in likeness of the Trinity, including making whole in human contexts. The beatitudes’ integral process, therefore, is ongoing and its outline is not just linear but reflexive in our identity’s growth and maturation. As identity issues of ambiguity and shallowness become resolved, our identity as Jesus’ followers takes on a distinguished qualitative presence with others in the world. This is the basis for Jesus’ definitive declaration immediately following the beatitudes that we are the light and the salt, in which the ontology of we is the whole understanding of the light and the salt that integrally distinguishes the relational outcome of the new wine flowing integrally in the new creation church family.

Persons, peoples, tribes and nations around the world experience diversely the social reality of belonging. Any limited experience they may have of belonging’s relational reality is always constrained by the counter-relational workings of reductionism—the prevailing reality dominating the human condition. Sadly, the constraints on belonging’s relational reality are also widely experienced by Christians and churches in global Christianity. This condition cannot be turned around by a virtual reality of the gospel, nor by any misinformation about the Good News.

If the gospel claimed by global Christianity is from the God whose identity is formed in the image of humans, then the results from that gospel are not a relational outcome but something quantitatively comparable to what forms common human identity and function. Any such result is the only claim that can be made from an effectively partial or fragmentary gospel. Anything less and any substitutes for the unequivocal relational outcome that the Word embodied to constitute the whole gospel always counter the relational outcome intrinsic to his gospel. Furthermore, what commonly results from any other gospel is contrary to the relational reality of belonging that the Word vulnerably embodied for the face-to-face involvement necessary in uncommon relationship together.

The prevalent reality is that such common results keep evolving in Christian contexts, and thereby increasingly become the norm for Christian practice. This evolving condition makes evident a commonized bias that distorts what is acceptable for the gospel, and thus what is agreeable to claim from and proclaim about it. In other words, a Christian lens that is commonized is partial (implicitly biased) to what is simply practical in a surrounding context. A practical faith and gospel, then, affirms the diverse Christian identity and function evolving from the reverse dynamic of anything less and any substitutes. And the where and who of belonging become divergent accordingly.

The contextualized bias evident in Christian diversity must always account for the underlying influence of commonized bias. The contrast and conflict between the common and the uncommon cannot be overstated. The relational consequences of the former always evolve in diverse claims from an assumed gospel, which always have repercussions in the diversity of belonging experienced by persons, peoples, tribes and nations throughout global Christianity. These relational consequences and repercussions disproportionately affect the marginalized hoping for a better life, but who are either forced to compete or coerced to conform in order to have claim to some gospel and assume they belong. This existential condition has been endemic in global Christianity both North and South; and the assumption of belonging keeps evolving in ontological simulations and functional illusions that are insignificant to the vulnerable presence and relational involvement of the Word and his whole-ly gospel.

Therefore, Christians and churches must not underestimate the relational outcome of belonging that emerges integrally only from the whole-ly gospel embodied by the Word. And make no assumption to the contrary, we are ongoingly challenged, confronted and corrected by the whole-ly Word and gospel.

[1] Quote and background taken from Howard W. French, “The West owes a centuries-old debt to Haiti,” OP-ED, Los Angeles Times, 10/10/21.

[2] Vinoth Ramachandra puts globalization in a bigger picture for Christians in Subverting Global Myths: Theology and the Public Issues Shaping Our World (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008).

[3] Andy Crouch challenges Christians to repurpose this technology in The Tech-Wise Family: Everyday Steps for Putting Technology in Its Proper Place (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2017).

[4] For a discussion of AI’s progress, see Jason Thacker, The Age of AI: Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Humanity (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Thrive, 2020).

[5] See, for example, a recent study (working paper) from Yale University by Gordon Pennycook, Tyrone Cannon and David Rand, “Prior Exposure Increases Perceived Accuracy of Fake News”. Online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2958246.

[6] Joel B. Green, “Our Culturally Shaped Lenses” in Fuller Magazine, Issue #8, 2017, 3.