Ch 2 The Faith of Churches

“All the churches need to know that I am the one who searches minds and hearts.”

Who defines the faith of a church, individuals or the church? Both! Who, then, determines how the faith of a church functions? That will depend primarily on who and what that church is. In today’s world of technology, the data of these answers, always including the related theology, will now be subject to AI constructing the Christian faith to shape churches in its virtual image and simulated likeness. As we examine the faith of churches, the answers will be clarified, as well as unravel the broader construction of Christian faith and intensify its deconstruction.

On the one hand, the identity of a church is made up of who and what individuals are; and the function of a church’s faith is determined primarily by how those individuals are. On the other hand, a church has a corporate identity whose function primarily defines and determines the faith both of the church and its individual members. These processes are not either-or since they do not exist independent of each other but, in fact, often overlap in mutual interaction of each exerting its influence on the other. Examining in what direction this influence is exerted and understanding the results will further unravel the issues anticipated that need to be resolved in the faith of churches.

We proceed in this examination on the basis of what Jesus (together with the Spirit) made clear unequivocally that “all churches need to know that I am the one who searches minds and hearts” (Rev 2:23). Thus, churches and their individuals, prepare to go to this integral depth, which will either expose the mind quantifying the outer in or will highlight the primacy of the heart encompassing the wholeness of the inner out.

Churches are diverse as individuals are, and their faith is variable like individuals. The determining factor in this mutual diversity and variability is whether churches define their individuals or individuals define their churches. Will these stories unfold from the faith churches live or just evolve from the faith they have? The answer is clarified only on the basis of what Jesus made clear above.

Whether this process unfolds or evolves depends on similar issues of inner-out or outer-in identity and function, as well as their faith being a noun or a verb to determine the faith they just have or indeed live. Thus, what was examined in Chapter 1 about the individual and their faith directly overlaps and interacts with examining the faith of churches.

The identity formation of a church is usually initiated by an individual(s), although denominational churches rely on their corporate structure and organizational nature operated by individuals or in spite of them. Our examination of church identity formation needs to go deeper than the quantified distinctions of who and what churches are to get to the heart of who and what the church is created to be and thereby how the church functions. Of course, the who, what and how of many churches have been, are and continue to be subject to human shaping under the subtle assumption that God is just as humans are (as God confronted in Ps 50:21). Consequently, this underlies the existing shape of many churches and their individuals. The question remains, however, about which came first, ‘the chicken or the egg’.

When the focus in this metaphor for the church is on God’s creation, the chicken by its intrinsic nature comes first. When the focus digresses or is transposed, for example, to biological evolution, then the egg comes first. Accordingly, the identity formation of a church unfolds only when focused on God’s creation, while it evolves focused on anything less or any substitutes. So, when is the church definitively a chicken and when it is merely an egg? We will address this question shortly after further discussing the direction of influential interaction between churches and individuals.

When a church takes on the primary priority as the chicken, it produces individual eggs according to its faith. How a church practices its faith either revolves around the activities and acting of faith as a noun that church has, or is by the action of faith as a verb that church lives. The faith of this church’s individuals subsequently are hatched in likeness of this church, both to reflect it and to increase its eggs. Given the priority of a church as a chicken, the defining influence churches exert on individuals is critical to examine at an integral depth in order to determine the kind of chicken it is and the significance of its faith forming its eggs.

The activities of many churches and the acting witnessed (notably at worship services) of the faith they have generally become the identity markers for those churches. These identity markers have even evolved in the type of music and songs churches use in worship services.[1] If you examine the church you belong to or merely attend, what do the church’s activities mean to you? And what does the acting by pastors, worship leaders, elders, and others do for you? Or how do their actions affect you?

As Jesus critiques the majority of early churches (see Rev 2-3), the faith they had was devoted, widely acclaimed, integrated with the surrounding world for good works, or highly resourceful. However, each church existed in their performative faith without getting down to the integral depth of living their faith in the qualitative image and relational likeness of the Trinity. On the limited and constrained basis of these churches, who and what would their individuals be and how would they function?

When the above dynamic is reversed for individuals to define their churches, what unfolds or evolves will have similar antecedents as discussed above about churches defining their individuals. For faith practice, the individual’s identity and function—either from inner out or outer in—is an inescapable condition, and the individual’s faith—either as noun or verb—is an unavoidable issue. Either the activating and acting of faith individuals have, or the action of faith they live is an inevitable determining condition of faith practice. On this basis, individuals from outer in or inner out, with a noun or verb as their faith, and by the activity and acting of faith they have, or action of faith they live, all together will either (1) shape their churches according to their likeness or (2) synthesize their churches in the image and likeness of God. The results from the former can and will only construct churches and the church’s faith with the variable reliability of faith in need of deconstruction. In contrast and conflict, the relational outcome from the latter can, must and will only grow churches and its faith with the consistent viability of faith directly involved in the primacy of relationship intimately joined together both with God and with each other as the church of nothing less and no substitutes.

The former is consequential whether individuals define their churches or churches define their individuals. And the latter enacts the relational outcome both for individuals defining their churches and churches defining their individuals. The former prevails for the majority of churches today, while the latter lives in only a minority and continues to be elusive to the majority—just as Jesus exposed in his critique of the majority of early churches and affirmed in a minority.

So, then, how do you think that you affect your church? Also, how do you reinforce and sustain your church, and how have you changed it?

It is essential to understand how the identity of the church was formed. The who and what of the church will always determine how the church functions. Thus, the who and what of the church is imperative to understand in its origin in order to know if it emerged metaphorically as a chicken or an egg. For the definitive answer, we have to go back to the beginning, which overlaps and interacts with the beginning of the individual.

In its beginning, how did the formation of the church come into existence, and did it unfold definitively or evolve variably?

During the incarnation Jesus created the roots for his church. He initially distinguished his church family in a surprising declaration. When he was told that his earthly biological family was urgently trying to find him in order to put limits on him to constrain the action of his person, he responded with “Who is my family? Then, pointing to persons who followed his person from inner out, not those on a parallel path, he declared unequivocally: “Here is my family. Whoever lives their faith in God with the relational trust on the basis of God’s relational terms, thereby is intimately involved in relationship together for the relational outcome constituting my church family” (paraphrasing Mt 12:48-50). His created roots for the church are further distinguished definitively by God’s relational terms, which integrally creates the church family in the qualitative image and relational likeness of the Trinity.

These relational terms creating the church family are integrally constituted in Jesus’ encompassing intercessory prayer to the Father on behalf of his church family (Jn 17). He defines the integral relational context and process between the Father and the Son (implicitly with the Spirit) that unites the trinitarian persons as One in the intimate connection of their relationship together. Their integral relational context and process create the integral relational basis and outcome for Jesus’ church family to come alive and live just as the Trinity lives. This is the invariable relational outcome of Jesus’ prayer that creates the church as a chicken, not as an egg evolving to hatch in human terms.

The family members of the church live together in the organic structure of Christ’s body, which is the relational outcome constituted by the Spirit (1 Cor 12). Christ’s body identifies the various secondary distinctions of each member, not to be confused with the identity of each of their whole persons from inner out. Too many Christians define themselves and each other by what they do in the church body, or by the gifts they have, which are designated by the Spirit as secondary to the primacy of relationships together as family. It is imperative to understand that Paul’s definitive account of Christ’s body was also necessary to counter various individuals in the Corinthian church. Throughout his Corinthian letters, Paul confronted those who constructed their faith and shaped the church from outer in, subtly in human likeness rather than God’s. The relational consequences were the reduction and fragmentation of the Corinthian church and its individuals from the wholeness created in God’s image and likeness, not theirs.

Each of the secondary parts composing Christ’s body serves for the integral purpose of the church’s created function to be lived in wholeness as one family just as the Trinity is One, thus for the church not to have a performative function of its members roles in and gifts for the activities and acting as merely a church body in variable likeness of the church’s (and its individuals’) creation. For the relational outcome, however, to be the experiential relational reality of significant relational connections for the church necessitates, by the church’s created nature, for the church’s relationships together to function in relational likeness of the Trinity. What distinguishes and determines these relationships together?

In today’s digital world, the hatching of relationships evolves predominately online to form digital connections. Many have become weary and dissatisfied with these virtual relationships. This has led to a current effort in various contexts to return to an “analog lifestyle,” with the hope of renewing a deeper involvement by individuals. Churches as an egg have hatched with similar relational consequences, yet their turnround to a chicken is not evident for renewing relationships in the church as created by Jesus in likeness of the Trinity.

To recap Jesus’ heart-level critique of early churches, each of the majority of these churches was confronted for its constructed faith to be accountable for deconstruction. The church in Laodicea had an identity built on the foundation of its strong resourcefulness as the basis for what it did and had. This illusion of its self-worth rendered who and what it was to a mediocre condition of just being “lukewarm, neither cold nor hot”; and this rendered how it functioned to a simulated relationship with God keeping a relational distance, at best, and likely disconnected. Jesus simply rejected its evolving as an egg (“spit you out of my mouth”) and pursued them to turn around, so that the church would be restored to the wholeness of relationship together as family (Rev 3:14-20).

Then Jesus confronted the church at Sardis, who had a hot reputation (a contrast to Laodicea). The widely esteemed reputation of the faith it had was measured quantitatively by reduced and fragmentary standards evolving in its surrounding context (compare to digital measures today). Consequently, it was reduced effectively to an egg evolving quantified from outer in by the measure it used—just as Jesus made axiomatic earlier (Mk 4:24)—thus lacking the qualitative nature of the church as chicken. So, Jesus confronted its resounding outer-in faith and practice constructed without being whole from inner out as a chicken created by God in his qualitative image. His “wake up” call alerted this church to be freed from the reduced limits and fragmentary constraints of its parallel path, and thereby be restored to the narrow path created by Jesus for the wholeness of his church family (Rev 3:1-3). Wake up, eggs, to the sound of a chicken—the measure used is the measure you become!

Jesus also confronted the church at Thyatira for the hybrid faith they subtly constructed. It was actively engaged in the surrounding community to serve its needs with a sense of love; and its latest works were greater than at first. As an activist church, however, it did not clearly distinguish its full identity of who and what it was, which would have been in contrast to, if not in conflict with, its surrounding community. This church effectively placed its egg in the surrounding nest with assumptions about being part of it. Consequently, it not only blended into this surrounding context but also associated with parts of the community as if it were its own. Thus, it evolved no longer distinguished from them in contrast or conflict. What evolved for this church as an egg constructed a hybrid of identity and function that was no longer defined and distinguished from inner out as Jesus created for the church signifying a chicken (Rev 2:18-23).

Most notable in Jesus’ critique, he confronted the church at Ephesus. Since a chicken is created and an egg evolves, the issue of which came first should be apparent but its significance ongoingly faces churches for their accountability. This church represents the strength of churches working hard at maintaining their beliefs and ensuring the sum of its integrity as orthodox while in a climate of variable theology. This church also persevered in this theological struggle, as well as endured hardships for the sake of Jesus’ name without growing weary. Wow, what is Jesus critiquing that called for this devoted and uncompromising church’s confrontation? Didn’t the chicken come first to define its constitution? But, the reality is that no one is immune to the sin of reductionism, and this theological model of a church became subject to reductionism’s counter-relational workings.

Jesus didn’t hesitate to declare what he held against this church. “You have forsaken the love you first experienced ‘as I have loved you’; and thus, since you veered off course from your beginning, you have abandoned our intimate relationship together in its primacy by substituting secondary issues and concerns, however important they may have been” (Rev 2:1-5). In other words, this church as a chicken at first became unintentionally or inadvertently reduced to an egg. How does this happen?

In Jesus’ relational love, he confronts this church to be accountable first and foremost for the relational work of love, which initiated the relational response and involvement by the Trinity in order to:

2. created the church and its individuals to be family together in the intimate relationship of love joined heart to heart, which is witnessed innately in the Trinity and living intrinsically in the church family by the Trinity’s relational likeness (Jn 15:9; 17:23,26).

Furthermore, Jesus also made definitive his relational work of love earlier for his church family by declaring “I will not forsake (aphiemi, same word as Rev 2:4) you or abandon you, and thereby leave you as orphans without my church family” (Jn 14:18).

The church at Ephesus, at some point after its beginning, no longer lived in the primacy of the intimate relationship of love as constituted and created by the Trinity. It would also incur the relational consequences not only in relationship with God but with each other in the church. The intimate relationships of love heart to heart are not a given just because love is identified in its faith. Relationships of mere association become the given in any church forsaking its first love. When relational distance or disconnection replace heart-to-heart intimacy, then another relational consequence in those churches is the reality that many individuals in the church are rendered alone in its gatherings by its relational distance. In such an association, individuals effectively will be relational orphans and likely feel lonely in those gatherings of that church.

Therefore, the essential relational work of love is not optional for the church as a created chicken, nor is it negotiable to whatever evolves from the church as an egg. And whether as a church or its individuals, who would not be found accountable if not living their faith by the relational action of love? Regardless of the strength of their faith and the extent of its practice, the quantity of their resources, the value of their reputation, the amount of their service and devotion, as well as their theological certainty, the inflection point from the relational love of Jesus will necessarily be accountably confronted.

Emphatically stated, the church as a chicken is only created, whereas the church as an egg just evolves; and God’s creation always antecedes as well as supersedes any evolution to constitute the church as chicken ongoingly primary, not just at first. Nothing less and no substitutes distinguishes the church as a chicken, but anything less and any substitutes always forms the church as an egg. This is the critical inflection point for the faith of churches. But what also needs to be exposed in the consequential issue of anything less and any substitutes is the illusion that consistently evolves in many believing that a church as an egg hatches into a chicken.

Moreover, a chicken or an egg also alerts the church and its individuals to the integral depth of Jesus’ work of salvation. Our attention on Jesus’ relational work of love now must extend to what Jesus saves us for.

Just as Jesus’ relational work of love gets reduced to his sacrifice centered on the cross, his work of salvation gets fragmented in the faith most churches and individuals have. The theology of salvation (soteriology) in most belief systems centers on and is limited to what Jesus saves us from: that is, saved from sin. Forgiveness is basic to being saved from sin, and it expresses an essential function of Jesus’ relational work of love. Yet, forgiveness only releases us from the sin we present to God by our faith. This raises issues about our sin and its forgiveness composed by our faith.

As witnessed in the first generation of individual humans, their human being and being human were contrary to God not just by their disobedience. Disobedience has been and continues to be the prevailing composition of sin emerging from the primordial garden. Accordingly, this sin has been and continues to be the prevailing perception of sin’s composition in the theology for Jesus’ work of salvation. But, as introduced by Satan in the garden, sin composes the reduction of wholeness created by God; and this sin as reductionism is what counters the wholeness of God in relationships together with God and with each other. Consequently, sin must by its nature be always composed by nothing less than reductionism. Moreover, even though being saved from the sin of reductionism is essential for human being, it is insufficient for being human to live as God created in the image and likeness of the Trinity. That is to say, Jesus’ relational work of love not only saves us from sin, but also by the nature of his relational love Jesus integrally saves us to integrated with from.

‘What does Jesus save us to?’ is obscure theologically and becomes the elusive dimension in soteriology that generally exists in a theological fog. Our examination needs to clarify, correct and convict churches and individuals in their faith, in order for their faith to be lived by the action of what Jesus saves us to, so that their faith will not be composed by limited activities and constrained acting evolving from merely what Jesus saves us from. To what extent churches and individuals today will be saved is an open question only they can answer.

What we are saved from plus to cannot be reduced to the likes of a mathematical calculation. In other words, the relation work of love by Jesus to save us cannot be quantified merely to behaviors of sin. Nor can it be open ended without the relational outcome of his love. It also means that the variable faith churches and individuals have and the diversity evolving in their faith practice cannot grasp, embrace and encompass his relational outcome when limited to what Jesus saves us from. This unavoidably and thankfully brings us to the relational reality of his relational love constituting the relational outcome of what Jesus saves us to.

The truth is that since Jesus saves us from the sin of reductionism countering God’s wholeness, then we cannot only be saved from the reduction of wholeness without also being saved to being restored to that wholeness. In other words, Jesus’ work of salvation cannot just forgive us for reducing or fragmenting God’s wholeness without making us whole again in both our human being and being human. Otherwise, our human being and being human are left in limbo still being defined and determined by anything less and any substitutes. Unequivocally and irreplaceably, however, Jesus’ relational work of love constitutes his work of salvation for completing his saving us to the new creation of wholeness in the qualitative image and relational likeness of the Trinity.

This relational outcome for the church created by the Trinity unfolds only from the redemptive change of its old ways dying so that the church is raised new in the redemptive reconciliation of the church’s intimate relationships together both with God and within the church family (as in 2 Cor 5:17-18). Jesus’ relational work of love first frees us from our effectively enslaved condition in the sin of reductionism; and then he reconciles us back to his family by the relational involvement of our cleansed hearts vulnerably opening to God and each other in the intimate relationship of love only as he loved us (cf. Col 1:13-14). This relational outcome intensifies when the church family reconciles the relational orphans in its midst as well as in its surroundings by adopting them to belong now in the church as family.

Yet, the relational outcome of what Jesus saves us to for his church family not only reconciles the church and its individuals in the intimate relationships of love as he loved us (witnessed in 1 Cor 12:12). Integrated essentially with these intimate relationships of love is the following:

In order for the church family to be fully reconciled to its created wholeness, it necessarily also must be involved relationally in the integrally essential process of equalization. As the church reconciles together in intimate relationships, their love must also address the inherent and ascribed distinctions that the church’s individuals have from outer in. These distinctions create an inequality between individuals that requires them to be equalized in order to be reconciled together as family in wholeness.

As long as any distinctions are used to define individuals in the church, their relationships cannot and do not reconcile together intimately but are relegated to the comparative system ranking them on a vertical scale of better or less (cf. 1 Cor 12:14-16, 21).

In Jesus’ church family, all these distinctions that its members have are overtly equalized essentially as persons from inner out. Equalization is a deliberate and necessary process in order that any of their distinctions do not prevent them from being reconciled together in the heart-to-heart intimate relationships of love. Therefore, redemptive reconciliation is constituted in Jesus’ work of salvation by his relational work of love, so that his church family lives together in wholeness by their integral relationships both intimate and equalized in the relational likeness of the Trinity.

Redemptive reconciliation is not optional but essential for the wholeness of who, what and how the church family and its persons and relationships are to be. The relational outcome for the church family as created by the Trinity is the unequivocal identity and function of the church as intimate equalizer (as initially defined the early church, Acts 15:8-11). Paul clarified Jesus’ work of salvation to make definitive the relational outcome of the church as intimate equalizer (Eph 2:14-22). This makes whole the theology of salvation for the faith of churches to be lived for, in and with their individuals together in the action of love whole-ly (integrally whole & holy/uncommon) “just as I love you…and by this action all will know that you are my family” (Jn 13:35).

When the faith of churches is not only deconstructed but transformed to the church as intimate equalizer, it holds us accountable for choosing to make our distinctions primary and confronts us in our choice for self-determination by them. Accountably confronting is essential because the choices for both imply and are consequential of the following:

The above consequences frequently elude the awareness of churches because the soteriology in their belief systems tends to be in a theological fog. Equality distinguishes the innermost of the whole and uncommon (whole-ly) God and is at the heart of God’s relational response of love to our human condition. The church as intimate equalizer distinguishes the innermost of whole-ly God’s likeness and extends the heart of God’s relational response of love to the fragmentary condition of all the persons, peoples, tribes and nations in this pluralistic, globalizing world—just as Jesus prayed for his church family. So, given what Jesus integrally saves us from and to, what does the church as intimate equalizer mean for the global church in all its diversity?[2]

Accountability for the faith constructed by churches has also been elusive if not avoided. It should be apparent from Jesus’ axiom (Mk 4:24), however, that the measure churches have used in their faith practice, then unequivocally and unavoidably is the measure of who, what and how churches have become—nothing more yet even something less. With the echoes from Jesus’ critique of churches howling for our attention, will deconstructions of church faith unfold to turn them around to the relational outcome of Jesus’ relational work of love?

The earliest church struggled to be equalized (Acts 6:1). The early church leaders struggled at the church council in Jerusalem for the church to be the intimate equalizer (Acts 15). The church at Corinth struggled to be equalized (1 Cor 1:10-13; 4:7). The church at Galatia had to turn around in order to be equalized (Gal 1:6; 3:26-28). Paul challenged Philemon to intimately equalize in his faith (Phm 8-16), and he confronted Peter and other church leaders with him to stop acting in their faith and start living their faith for the church to be the intimate equalizer (Gal 2:14). And on and on, the struggle persisted for the church to be equalized from inner out as well as for the church to be the intimate equalizer.

The church as intimate equalizer perhaps is more visibly needed in the surrounding world today than since the beginning. The current U.S. immigration policy is a glaring example of the human condition, notably among its Christian supporters. This need is apparent also in the fragmenting diversity of the global church, which can only have an illusion of functioning as a unified church, much less live as Jesus’ church family. Whether heard or not, the question resonates from God “Where are you?” for the faith of churches to be deconstructed. As Jesus loves us, he awaits the reciprocal response of love from churches and their leaders

2. To answer his “wake up” call to stop being fragmented and become whole, as well as

Why does Jesus urgently await our reciprocal response? Because his relational outcome from his relational love is not a unilateral process that he solely controls and determines. Even though he initiates the relational work of love, its relational outcome becomes a relational reality only when we reciprocate with our relational love “just as I love you.” Therefore, only in and thereby from these reciprocal relational responses of love does the relational outcome of what Jesus saves us to become the experiential truth and relational reality. By nothing less and no substitutes can and will redemptive change bring redemptive reconciliation to the church’s relationships together integrally intimate and equalized as church family in the relational likeness of the Trinity.

In this reciprocal relational outcome, the struggle of faith that churches have will be resolved. The resolution, however, is irreducible and nonnegotiable, because churches are resolved only for them to be free to live whole in the relational action of love that reciprocates in likeness just as Jesus loves them, whereby they embody the church as intimate equalizer without anything less and any substitutes.

Take heed and pay close attention, however, because this relational outcome only becomes the unequivocal relational reality when the inflection points constructing Christian faith are accountably confronted. Only then will the faith of those churches, church leaders and their individuals be deconstructed. In the meantime, what are you going to do with the distinctions making up your self-portrait, and those distinctions portraying your church? Unequal relationships are irreconcilable unless intimately equalized.

The human and commonized images by which churches have been constructed are the status quo that keeps evolving in new normals for the global church. This existential reality has disaffected many in younger generations, who don’t see the church as relevant for their faith practice or as sufficient context to address their needs.[3] What currently pervades the church accelerates the urgent need for the church to be re-image-d, not reimagined as witnessed today but re-image-d according to the depth of its created roots.

When Paul defines the church as being reconciled in one body (Eph 2:16) and as equalized persons relationally belonging to God’s family (2:19), this church family (not church building) is further defined as being “joined together” (2:21). Paul is providing further theological-functional clarity to his previous dialogue on the church (1 Cor 12:12-31; Rom 12:5). His earlier relational discourse appears to describe an organic or organizational structure of the church whose parts are interrelated and function in interdependence. Paul deepens the understanding of interrelated parts in interdependence by further defining the relational dynamic involved to make this integrally function in wholeness together (Eph 4:16).

Implied in church theology and practice biases is the worldview prevailing at the time.[4] Worldviews shape the surrounding contexts that influence the identity and function of churches as well as of God, notably as the Trinity. Understanding how worldviews get magnified in church theology and practice is critical for re-image-ing the church in contrast to reimagining it.

In the church’s perceptual-interpretive lens of the Trinity, uncommon likeness also requires the uncommon Trinity, who is not distinguished in common Trinitarianism.[5] God’s glory encompasses the heart of the Trinity’s qualitative being functioning integrally by the glory of the Trinity’s intimate relational nature. At the heart of the Trinity, the trinitarian persons’ distinctions of roles and functions (enacted to love us downward) are indistinguishable—“whoever has seen my whole person has seen the Father,” “The Father and I are one at the heart of our being” as the embodied Word disclosed (Jn 14:9; 10:30)—and thus they are not structured together by a system of distinctions, as is commonly perceived in trinitarian theology and practice. The substantive face of the Trinity vulnerably disclosed the heart of the Trinity to distinguish the ontological One of the person-al Trinity and the relational Whole of the inter-person-al Trinity.

Intimate and equalized relationships inseparably define and integrally determine the whole ontology and function of the Trinity. The uncommon intimate whole essential to the heart of the Trinity’s ontology is constituted only by the function of whole trinitarian persons distinguished as subjects intimately involved in relationships together, which by their nature are equalized from the distinctions of their roles and functions and thus without the horizontal and vertical barriers to the uncommon wholeness essential for the Trinity to be together and not to be reduced or fragmented. Accordingly yet not simply, nothing less and no substitutes can integrally define our persons as subjects and determine our relationships to be in uncommon likeness to this Trinity.

Intimacy is not optional for the uncommon Trinity, nor can intimacy be optional for those in likeness. This means that equalized persons and relationships are also not optional, both for the whole Trinity and for those in likeness. Not having this option is problematic, for example, for churches seeking more intimacy in their contexts without addressing equalizing their persons and relationships. This is also problematic for Christians promoting social justice and working for social change by equalization without intimate connection. We can’t have one relational condition without the other relational condition, because they are inseparably integrated to compose wholeness of persons and relationships in likeness of the whole and uncommon Trinity.

Yet, this whole likeness has undergone profound reductions in the framework of modernism, and the uncommon likeness has experienced ongoing fragmentation in the scope of postmodern approaches. These surrounding influences urgently amplify the Trinity’s confronting critiques and multiply the need to challenge, critique and confront the underlying assumptions of our belief systems. In addition, the current condition of persons and relationships confronts our view of sin, the significance of our gospel, and what we are saved to. All of these compelling issues converge in the measure of the Trinity used in our faith and practice, since that measure defines the persons we become and determines the relationships we get.

The most prominent realities shaping the human context and the majority of its persons and relationships—including the church context and its individuals and relationships—have emerged from the narratives mostly of modernism and less so of postmodernism.

In selective summary of the modern narrative from the emergence of the Enlightenment to its unfolding in modern science, its related process of reasoning and the recent effort to quantify the heart of the human person in the brain have profoundly narrowed down the epistemic field and the perceptual-interpretive framework to the realm of physics. As a result, assumptions are made as to the validity of this epistemic process and its reliability for application to all of life, such that the theories composed generate a grand narrative for defining the universe in general and for determining persons and relationships in particular.

Based on its quantitative framework narrowing down its epistemic field and perceptual lens to the outer in, the modern narrative has irreversibly reduced human persons and relationships not to be in qualitative relational function having qualitative sensitivity and relational awareness (i.e. being apart, Gen 2:18). From the Industrial Revolution to the internet world, the development of modern technology has indelibly entrenched and literally enslaved persons and relationships on a course of human development that has reduced the primacy of their created wholeness with secondary substitutes. These more-valued substitutes can only simulate who, what and how they are in a virtual likeness—notably evident in the use of digital technology and development of AI—that is, in a reality without qualitative relational significance and thus in no substantive reality.

The existing condition of persons and relationships in developed countries is no mystery and its development—perceived as so-called progress—is evident in the modern narrative. In these contexts in particular, the prognosis for changing this condition is confounding, and the recourse to make it whole is denied or at least ignored—which is witnessed in U.S. Christians and churches today. As emerged from the beginning, the modern narrative’s sweeping assumption has been that “you will not be reduced” (Gen 3:4). And the Trinity grieves (as in Lk 19:41-42) because the modern narrative also doesn’t know what makes for wholeness, since this uncommon wholeness is beyond its epistemic field and perceptual lens to understand. Those persons and relationships who have subscribed to the modern narrative must live and function by the valid axiom that reliably can be counted on for its results: the measure they use will be the measure they get—and what their reason thinks they have will evaporate from their grasp (Mk 4:24-25). Whether intentionally or inadvertently, those churches and its individuals and relationships who use the modern framework and lens are subject to this axiom, because this is the existing reality that they have gotten in common likeness.

Another more recent narrative has emerged from postmodern thinking counter to the modernist narrative. The grand narrative of modernism is not accepted in postmodernism, at least not ostensibly. The variable thinking of postmodernists opts to define persons and relationships in the grassroots experience of their local contexts. Who, what and how persons and relationships are have their primacy in their particular settings, which cannot be generalized to all persons and relationships as in a grand narrative. In this sense, the epistemic field for postmodernists is narrowed down even more than modernism; yet, on the other hand, the postmodernist lens is broadened to behold a wide range of individuals and relationships. Thus, the likeness of individuals and relationships that emerge from the postmodern narrative is not a reduced likeness as in modernism, but it becomes fragmented likenesses of individuals and relationships merely from the diversity of human contextualization. The postmodern likeness is considered reliable in itself yet not valid for general application. Given its basis and discounting of modernist assumptions, the postmodern epistemic field and hermeneutic lens are useful for diversifying (read fragmenting) global theologies and practices—particularly composed to counter Western dominance—but they are problematic for whole trinitarian theology and practice.^{^[6]}

While the postmodern narrative broadens, and perhaps deepens, its stories of individuals and relationships, any of its theories provide no basis for individuals and relationships to be considered whole. Rather, what is proposed is merely nothing more than distinctly fragmentary likeness—the balkanization of individuals and relationships in likeness. Since it affirms no general narrative beyond local human context, even though postmodern theories may make statements as if to generalize, the measure it uses can only yield the individuals and relationships it gets—beyond whom it must remain silent, without knowledge and understanding of the whole needed for the human condition. And the balkanized likeness of individuals and relationships remains in a condition “to be apart,” as if the face of Jesus disclosed nothing relevant or significant for persons and relationships to be in likeness.

Unlike the modernist narrative limited to the realm of physics, the emergence of the Trinity integrates the realms of physics and metaphysics to disclose the essential integral reality beyond those realms. The essential reality of the whole and uncommon Trinity composes the metanarrative integral for all life—distinguished from the grand narrative of modernism—which encompasses all persons and relationships in uncommon likeness neither reduced nor fragmented. Apart from this integral metanarrative, there is no essential basis for wholeness either for the Trinity or for persons and relationships.

This is the epistemological and hermeneutical dilemma that a postmodern narrative faces, even apart from its counterpart modern narrative. The resolution of this dilemma will only take place—and not without difficulty—when its epistemic field and hermeneutic lens account for and therefore become accountable to the whole and uncommon Trinity relationally disclosed qualitatively in the human context, yet not defined and determined by human contextualization as postmodernists depend on.

The reduced likeness from a modernist narrative may assume to be applicable to all persons and relationships, but that application can only reduce who, what and how persons and relationships are. The fragmentary-balkanized likeness from a postmodernist narrative is inapplicable to all persons and relationships and makes no explicit assumptions that it does. Yet, there appears to be an underlying assumption that the sum of all those fragments from local settings could apply to the whole of the human context. Perhaps balkanized likeness is considered analogous to diverse nations converging to form the United Nations. That sum, however, would still not equal the whole—which is greater than the sum of any parts or fragments—needed for all persons and relationships to be in essential likeness to the whole-ly Trinity.

We need to challenge our own assumptions and face the surrounding reality of reduced and fragmented likenesses; and we need to stop ignoring them or denying their influential reality in our midst, both of which keep us “to be apart” from our essential likeness. That essential likeness for human persons and relationships in life together is uncommon to all that is common, whether in a modern narrative or a postmodern narrative.

Though idolized (as in modernism) or idealized (as in postmodernism), the likeness from such narratives can only compose persons and relationships in a virtual reality of the whole who, what and how essential to be. Even the likeness from a premodern narrative involved basically the same issues for persons and relationships. Christendom evolved in the fourth century, for example, to impose its common framework for all theology and practice to conform to a reduced ontology and function in common likeness. Similar in likeness, other efforts to ensure orthodoxy and to avoid fragmentation in the church established the primacy of doctrine over the primacy of relationships together involving the whole person, which thereby composed common orthodoxy in unlikeness to the whole and uncommon Trinity (cf. the church at Ephesus). The common shaping of persons and relationships also emerged in the earliest church. Paul further fought against these “fine-sounding arguments, persuasive speech” (Col 2:4,8,16-19, notably from the early forms of gnosticism) in order that the interrelated likeness of persons, relationships and the church would be in uncommon wholeness—integrated together with the uncommon whole ontology and function of the Trinity disclosed by Christ (Col 2:9-10, as in Eph 4:13-16).

Thus, implicit in Paul’s uncommon ecclesiology—contrary to a worldview implied in church theology and practice—is the relational dynamic that Jesus constituted in his prayer for the definitive formation of his church family (Jn 17). Paul extends the whole-ly Word’s relational dynamic in order to fulfill his prayer in the existential reality of the church that is re-image-d solely by the Trinity (17:21-23). In Paul’s whole ecclesiology, the functional significance of church ontology and function emerges as the church lives “created according to the likeness of God” (Eph 4:24). The church, for Paul, is the Father’s new creation family embodied in Christ and raised up by the Spirit in the relational likeness of this whole of God, who dwells intimately present and agape-relationally involved. If not created and functioning in this likeness, church becomes a gathering of human shaping or construction in likeness of some aspect of human contextualization, which then often reifies its ontological illusions and functional simulations as the body of Christ in contrast to and conflict with the relational intimacy of the Trinity.

Paul was no trinitarian in his theological development, yet his monotheism went beyond the knowledge and understanding of the Shema in Judaism (Dt 6:4). His experiential truth of Jesus and the Spirit in ongoing relationship together gave him whole knowledge and understanding of the whole of God. The relational and functional significance of Paul’s whole God constituted him as a new creation in God’s family and provided the unequivocal basis for the church as God’s new creation family to be in the relational likeness of this whole-ly God whom he himself has experienced intimately in relationship together.

Thus, trinitarian likeness was not a theological construct or an ethereal practice for Paul. It signified the reality of his intimate face-to-face involvement with the trinitarian persons, which composed the trinitarian relational process “with unveiled faces…being transformed into Jesus’ likeness…who is the Spirit” (2 Cor 3:18). This essential relational outcome was the whole and uncommon basis for the whole of Paul’s person and the whole in his theology and practice, which most notably composed the uncommon wholeness of the church and its persons and relationships in trinitarian likeness. In other words, since the Damascus road this monotheistic Jew vulnerably experienced the relational response of the trinitarian persons and their ongoing intimate relational involvement in family love, so that his whole person was to be distinguished in trinitarian likeness (see also Col 3:10-11; Gal 5:6; 6:15). .

Even though Paul was no traditional trinitarian in theology, he clearly made definitive for the church this trinitarian likeness: “There are different…but the same Spirit…but the same Lord Jesus…but it is the same God the Father”; in addition, “There is one body and one Spirit…one hope…one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all” (Eph 4:4-5), and differences granted to the church are based on each person “given grace according to the measure of Christ’s gift” (4:7) and “given the presence and involvement of the Spirit for the uncommon wholeness of the church…just as the body is one and has many members…are one ontological whole in likeness of the trinitarian persons…all our persons baptized into equalized relationships together without distinctions” (1 Cor 12:7-13). The whole of Paul and the whole in his theology for the church can only be understood in this trinitarian likeness, which transforms persons from inner out in their relationships without the veil to constitute the uncommon wholeness of the church in uncommon likeness of the whole and uncommon Trinity (as Paul made definitive in 2 Cor 3:14-18).

Churches need to understand, however, that the bond of wholeness is not simply a bond of love but is relationship-specific to whole persons in two vital nonnegotiable ways:

When Paul earlier held the church accountable to “open wide your hearts” in reciprocal likeness (2 Cor 6:11-13), it was this bond of wholeness in intimate and equalized relationships together in which he challenged their whole persons to be uncommon in trinitarian likeness. Nothing less and no substitutes for the church and its persons and relationships can be whole, just as is essential for the Trinity.

Therefore, for the ontological identity of the church to be of functional significance, it cannot be shaped or constructed by human terms from human contextualization. In Paul’s ecclesiology, the church in wholeness is the new creation by the whole of God’s relational response of grace (“was given grace”) from above top-down, the dynamic of which (“descended…ascended”) Christ relationally embodied to make each one of us together to be God’s whole (“he might fill all things,” make complete, Eph 4:7-10; cf. 1:23). This is the church in wholeness embodying the whole of Christ. In God’s relational response of grace, Christ also gave the relational means to church leaders for the dynamic embodying of the church (4:11), which Paul previously defined also as part of the Spirit’s relational involvement to share different charisma from the whole (not a fragmented source) for the functional significance of the church body (1 Cor 12:4-11). Paul illuminates this further to make definitive the functional significance of embodying of the church in relational likeness to the whole and holy God.

Church leaders are given the relational means for the purpose “to equip the saints” (katartismos from katartizo, to put into proper condition, to restore to former condition, make complete, 4:12). This directly points to the dynamic of transformed persons reconciled and relationally involved in transformed relationships together in relational likeness to God, and integrated in interdependence of the various church functions (“work of ministry”) necessary for the dynamic embodying (4:12) of the church’s whole ontology and function of “the whole of Christ” (4:13). This means unequivocally: For church leaders to be of functional significance, their persons must be defined by the wholeness of the new creation in the qualitative image of God from inner out, not defined by their gifts, resources or the roles and titles they have which reduce their persons to outer in; and for their leadership to be functionally significant as transformed persons, their function must be determined by agape relational involvement in transformed relationships together (both equalized and intimate) as God’s new creation family in the relational likeness of the whole-ly God, not determined by the titles and roles they perform (even with sacrifice) that make distinctions, intentionally or unintentionally, creating distance and stratification in relationships together. The latter practices by church leaders renegotiate ecclesiology from bottom-up based on a theological anthropology from outer in.

In the created roots of Paul’s ecclesiology, church leaders in reduced ontology and function are not created or living new in the image and likeness of God and, therefore, cannot equip and train others in the interdependence necessary to be of functional significance for embodying the church family in relational likeness of the whole and holy God. Nor can they proclaim the experiential truth of the gospel of wholeness (Eph 6:15). Only transformed leaders—whose persons are ongoingly being restored to the image and likeness of God (Col 3:10-11; cf. Eph 4:23)—vulnerably involved in transformed relationships together with the Spirit can help make complete the saints. Only whole leaders relationally serve to make complete the saints in the interdependence that is functionally significant for the church’s whole function: to dynamically embody the whole of Christ until all those relationally belonging to God’s family are intimately equalized together as one (unity); that is, whole in their relational response of trust in reciprocal relationship together and whole in specifically knowing the Son of God in intimate relationship, the relational outcome of which is persons without distinctions who are whole-ly complete in the qualitative depth of the wholeness embodied by Christ, therefore who together with the Spirit can embody the wholeness of Christ in functional significance of the relational likeness of the whole of God (4:12-13).

Paul is not outlining an ecclesial function of church growth models, missional models or any other ministry techniques of serving for the quantitative expansion of gatherings shaped or constructed by human terms. Paul makes definitive the theological paradigm for the whole function embodying the church’s ontology and function of who the church is and whose the church is as God’s new creation family in his qualitative image and relational likeness. This paradigm is the theological dynamic of church ontology, whose function is entirely relational and whose whole ontology and function is the functional significance just of transformed persons agape-relationally involved in transformed relationships together equalized in interdependence, the definitive paradigm especially for its leaders.

It is unequivocal in the created roots of Paul’s ecclesiology that the church in relational likeness of the whole-ly God is irreplaceable for the functional qualitative-relational significance of its ontology and function. For the church’s ontology and function to be whole as God’s new creation family, it must by its nature (not by obligation) embody the functional significance of both transformed relationships reconciled together and intimate interrelations integrated together in equalized interdependence; and both of these are functionally significant only in agape relational involvement. Church whole relationships together are reconciled together by Christ with the Spirit, thus are by their nature irreducible; and the embodied integrated relational outcome of church interdependence in relational likeness to the whole-ly God is nonnegotiable. Interdependent is how God created his new creation family, as well as created the whole human family in relationship together (cf. Gen 2:18) and integrated all of creation (cf. Col 1:20; Rom 8:19-21).

Churches may not want, even though they need, the presence and involvement of the person-al inter-person-al Trinity. The primary issue is because to be in uncommon likeness, the church and its persons and relationships have to be more vulnerable than they may want or find convenient—even though that is essential to what they need, which makes the want-need issue unavoidable. As Paul illuminated, wide-open hearts are uncommon and churches have consistently existed on a common easier path (as in parallel), contrary to Jesus’ intrusive relational path. Yet, to follow Jesus “where I am” (Jn 12:26) is neither optional nor open to negotiation for the church, despite the reality that discipleship has been presented as such by churches. Such church practice reflects a church’s incomplete Christology and truncated soteriology, and evidences a reduced theological anthropology of its persons and relationships in an ontology and function struggling (knowingly or not) to establish its identity both in the global community and within the global church—perhaps with a reputation like that of the church in Sardis, or with a track-record like that of the church in Ephesus.

The identity a church wants to establish may not be compatible or congruent with the identity the church needs to compose in likeness of the Trinity. As long as the integrity of who, what and how the church is (the whole of its righteousness) is not composed in the ontology and function that distinguishes its likeness beyond a common likeness of its surrounding context (locally, regionally and globally), that church has a major problem needing to be deconstructed. That church’s presence and involvement are in a critical condition that compromises the validity of its witness to the whole-ly God and its resource to know more than a common God. Churches in this likeness need to be accountably confronted in order to be transformed to uncommon wholeness only Jesus gives (Jn 14:27) to be in uncommon likeness; and that’s the pivotal reason why the church may not want the presence and involvement of the person-al inter-person-al Trinity.

Can you imagine going into a church and unilaterally turning it upside down in order to restore the relational context and process of God’s uncommon temple for all persons without distinctions? Can you also imagine tearing down a church’s tradition and exposing the barriers of its practice in order to open wide relationships of intimacy and equality to compose God’s uncommon temple? Paul more than imagined these because Jesus embodied and enacted this intrusive relational path to constitute his church family in uncommon wholeness (“not as the common gives,” Jn 14:27) in uncommon likeness (“just as I do not belong to the common,” Jn 17:14) of the Trinity, that is, whole and uncommon, person-al and inter-person-al.

What jumps out in front of our face from Jesus and Paul, face to face, about the church as God’s temple is the incompatibility between the uncommon and common, and that they are incongruent for any attempt to integrate them in a hybrid, not to mention irreconcilable in function and antithetical in ontology. What is ‘holy and sanctified’ has been perceived by churches throughout history with a common lens. That is, the uncommon (signifying holy) constituting the church by Jesus and composed for the church by Paul has been shaped by terms lacking congruence with the qualitative relational significance integral to their definition and application of uncommon. The most prominent issue-conflict involves the underlying theological anthropology defining persons and determining relationships in the church on the basis of what amounts to a common ontology and function—as evolved from the beginning. This church theology and practice further exposes an incomplete Christology of Jesus’ whole person disclosing the whole and uncommon Trinity, as well as exposes a truncated soteriology not encompassing being both saved from sin as reductionism and saved to wholeness of persons in relationship together as the Trinity’s new creation family. This essential reality and relational outcome have been pervasively commonized, such that at best they are simulated with only illusions of the uncommon.

The issue-conflict of defining persons and determining relationships in the church by a common ontology and function may not be apparent in the church’s theology, doctrinal statements and decrees of faith. But its operating presence emerges in the church’s practice of its individuals’ lack of heart-level involvement in the depth of relationships together integrally intimate and equalized in their differences and from their distinctions. Wide-open hearts in intimate reciprocal relationships is simply too uncommon and thus threatening for churches to advance for their individuals—a threat also for keeping their numbers in the church—plus too difficult for churches to cultivate in its relationships without having to address all the relational issues that emerge as individuals become more deeply involved.

Palatable relationships are certainly much easier for individuals (especially leadership) to face; just ask Jesus and Paul about their experiences related to the temple-church. The reason palatable relationships are easier to face is the fact that they don’t bring persons together in face-to-face relationships—which today is the seduction of social media and the use of technology in the church. At most, palatable relationships are an association between individuals in the church, gathering together essentially as relational orphans still ‘to be apart’ from the transformed relationships together both intimate and equalized in the new creation family composing the Trinity’s uncommon temple (Eph 2:21), that is, with the curtain torn away and the veil removed (2 Cor 3:16-18).

The relational context and process of the church as the Trinity’s uncommon temple have been reconstituted for the primacy of all its persons to have intimate relational connection and ongoing involvement with the Trinity and with each other face to face. For the church’s persons to have intimate relationships with the Trinity necessitates, by the nature of trinitarian relationship, the heart of the whole person, who by necessity has to be equalized from distinctions to be whole from inner out for the person’s involvement in intimate reciprocal relationship together—just ask the Samaritan woman (in Jn 4:7-26), on the one side of this relational equation, and Peter at his footwashing on the other side. The church of uncommon likeness has no available option for palatable relationships, because the intimate and equalized relationships of the Trinity’s uncommon temple are not optional but essential for the church to be in uncommon ontology and function to distinguish it and its persons and relationships together in uncommon likeness of the person-al inter-person-al Trinity.

Until the church is re-image-d, its contextualized and commonized images will continue to mirror the sociocultural, -political, -economic, and related human orders of the surrounding context, and thereby also (1) reflect the inequality and inequity of these orders and (2) magnify how relationships are enacted at a distance or with disconnection.

In the diversity of the global community, of course, relationships are ordered and enacted differently, but these grassroots reflect a human image and thus are contrary to the trinitarian image of church identity and function. The global church must face the reality that grassroots don’t grow in a vacuum but are cultivated in and by the human condition—namely, the counter-relational workings of the sin of reductionism fragmenting persons and relationships in reduced ontology and function. And the global church cannot presume that these grassroots can be laundered for compatibility as the church’s relational order and enactment of relationships. Any variable condition of the human order existing in the diversity of the global church needs to be deconstructed to undergo redemptive transformation in order for it to be turned around to redemptive reconciliation.

Therefore, the diversity of local and regional churches, along with the collective global church, are accountable to the created roots of Jesus’ church family, whereby they are challenged, confronted and accountable for the image of their identity and function. When churches fully embrace the whole-ly image of the Trinity, they will be re-image-d from divergent images composing the global church. For re-image-ing to be the growing relational reality of the church’s created roots, the diversity of the global church also needs to be re-order-ed by the new creation church as intimate equalizer.

Churches and their individuals need to pay close attention, if not “wake up,” to the evolving reality facing them: The measure of anything less and any substitutes creates the church in a sub-image submerged in the precarious waters of a theological fog. “Where is your faith?”

[1] For a discussion of these issues, see the study by Kary A. Kambara, A Theology of Worship: ‘Singing’ a New Song to the Lord (2011), online at https://4X12.org.

[2] For a discussion on the diversity of the global church, see my studies The Global Church Engaging the Nature of Sin & the Human Condition: Reflecting, Reinforcing, Sustaining or Transforming (Global Church Study), and The Diversity of the Integral Gospel: Repurposing Diversity to Re-image the Global Church (Diversity Study), online at https://www.4X12.org.

[3] See, for instance, the survey by the Barna Group, The State of Discipleship (The Navigators, 2015).

[4] David Naugle discusses worldview history and reification in Worldviews: the History of a Concept (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002).

[5] For a discussion on the Trinity, see my study The Face of the Trinity: The Trinitarian Essential for the Whole of God (Trinity Study, 2016), online at https://4X12.org.

[6] David S. Cunningham considers postmodernism an asset for developing a postmodern trinitarian theology, which would focus on a number of concerns neglected by theologians influenced by modernity. See his discussion in “The Trinity” in Kevin J. Vanhoozer, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Postmodern Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 186-202.