Ch 4 Our Perceptual-Interpretive Culture

concerning secondary things to do. But this relational imperative I gave them,

“Relationally respond to my voice and I will be your God and you shall be my people

and let me be involved with you in this context. Do not trust in misleading words.

On New Year’s Eve, 2018, NASA’s spacecraft New Horizons reached a mysterious body (known as Ultima Thule) in the universe, existing 4 billion miles from the earth. In the opening days of 2019, New Horizons started sending back close-up images to expand the known horizons of solar system; back in 2015, it sent back the first close-up images of dwarf planet Pluto seen by humanity. With these discoveries, the horizon of the human context has expanded, perhaps raising human speculation about reaching the horizon of God—a seemingly reasonable thought that is actually misinformed and thus misguiding. Even noted physicist Stephen Hawking came to understand this when he realized the limits of human contextualization—and its self-referencing theories that can only be inconsistent or incomplete—in his attempts to develop a “grand unified theory” (GUT) that supposedly would, in his words, “know the mind of God” and essentially make a creator God superfluous.[1]

The horizons of the human context and God’s context are mutually exclusive, with one exception: if One penetrates into the horizon of the other unilaterally, thereby entering into the other context on the basis of One’s own terms. This reality illuminates both God’s context and the human context, both of which need to be further known and better understood, and which will require going beyond and deeper than New Horizons. The human context needs to know its limits and constraints. In the scientific approach of its context, there is apparent basis to acknowledge its limits and constraints. Scientists, however, shaped by their human context don’t often function either by the limits and constraints intrinsic to science, or with awareness of their human context biasing their overall human function, general thinking, and specific interpretations as scientists.[2] In other words, while scientists probe the universe for new horizons, they also need to probe more deeply into the personal horizon of their surrounding context in order to know what underlies their function not merely as scientists but as humans.

Likewise, even more urgently, Christians need to examine their own horizon to know and understand their surrounding context’s shaping influence on their function, general thinking, and specific interpretations as Christians—and not assume that the horizon of God’s context has converged with theirs.

In John Donne’s classic words “No man is an island,” he pointed to the reality of humanity that humans are interconnected. Even though persons may be alone or feel alone, they are interconnected. That is to say, the related reality is that persons could in fact be “alone in a crowd” or a group, a tribe, a family, and even in a church. This raises the questions: How are persons interconnected, and then, what is the significance of their interconnection?

The integral design of humanity originally did not evolve but was created by God. In the original design, persons are not “to be alone” but in relationship together at the depth of their person from inner out, and thus beyond the association of any type of relationship (Gen 2:18,25). Thus, the created human context was constituted by whole persons interconnected in integral relationships together from inner out in the image and likeness of Creator God (Gen 1:26-27); and anything less and any substitutes rendered them “to be apart,” not just “to be alone.” The human context, however, did evolve when persons shifted from their integral design in order to reshape their identity and function, the consequence of which contextualized humans from outer in at the expense of their wholeness from inner out. The reality for the human context since this evolution is that reductionism contextualizes all humans in all human contexts with anything less and any substitutes. This real (not virtual) reality is inescapable, even to “an island.” So, then, what does this tell us about our surrounding context? And what significance does that context have for our identity and function?

Contextualization has been a pivotal issue facing God’s people ever since this human evolution. In Scripture, notably from the beginning of the OT, the people of God were exposed to a different context, which was distinctly contrasting and in conflict with God’s context, God’s whole and uncommon (whole-ly) context. This narrative, from the primordial garden through Israel’s history to the emergence of the church, describes the issues and consequences that evolved from this contextual encounter in everyday life with the surrounding contexts of the common’s world. Understanding these issues and consequences of contextualization, including their significance for the identity and function of God’s people, is basic for interpreting the Bible and a hermeneutic key for knowing and understanding God. Moreover, all of this that underlies contextualized humans both challenges as well as confronts Christian education in general and theological education in particular, calling into question what we are really learning about God. And the existing contextualization of Christians raises urgent concern for what is central to our education and the basis of our learning, whereby their causal source is determined.

Jeremiah was told to echo God’s words communicated to his people, which illuminated their contextual shift evolving from the primordial garden: “For in the beginning from my context, I did not communicate to them or command them concerning sacrifices and other such secondary things to do” (Jer 7:22). Yet, throughout its ancient history, “sacrifices” was one of the main identity markers for the nation of Israel, which is even highlighted in the NT. So, how does this reflect the contextualized humans that evolved in and ever since the primordial garden? Two further ways.

First, being the holy nation of God’s people was not enough to constitute Israel’s identity. When Samuel grew old and needed to be replaced, the elders of Israel implored Samuel to appoint a king over them instead, much to Samuel’s alarm. He tried to change their minds, but they refused to listen because they were embedded in defining their identity as a nation-state just “like all the other nations” in Israel’s surrounding context (1 Sam 8:4-10,19-20, NIV). Their desire to be like those in the surrounding context made evident their evolution as contextualized humans.

Secondly, Jeremiah was told to repeat to them the relational words from God: “But this relational imperative I gave them, ‘Relationally respond to my voice and I will be your God and you shall be my people; and be relationally involved in the primacy of relationship together only in the way of my relational terms’” (Jer 7:23). They assumed that God’s context had converged with their religious context and thereby were identified as God’s people. But, they had shifted from the primary constituting God’s context and became preoccupied with the secondary composing the surrounding human context; consequently, they had their identity shaped and their function reduced to the outer in—and how they transposed the Book of Love to the Book of Law. In this subtle shift, what was not apparent to them was obvious to God: They were contextualized humans “to be apart” from God’s whole-ly context.

What is primary in human life has undergone fundamental changes; and the primacy now determining what’s primary often differs from one surrounding context to another. What is primary for defining our identity and determining our daily function is the primacy given to the main surrounding context prevailing in our person and life together. The subtly or implicit primary used for this outcome is often not understood unless the determining primacy shaping this process is known. Contextualized humans don’t evolve from a mere concept or from merely a theory abstracted from concepts. The determining primacy we give our context shapes the primary used by all contextualized humans for their identity and function, evolving from the ways that particular context works out the life and practice within it and the significance given to those ways. This goes beyond merely a system of beliefs and values; even though such a system may have influence, that influence tends to be virtual by promoting ideals, which alone would be insufficient to contextualize humans. What does contextualize humans, and often irresistibly in key ways, is a specific culture of that surrounding context. Therefore, this culture composes the determining primacy we need to know, and signifies the primary determinant we need to understand, in order to assess the extent of influence our surrounding contexts could be having on our identity and function, and thereby on how we see what we see in the Word for our theology and practice.

In everyday life, culture is not something we think about; we just assume it or take it for granted, if we even know it’s there. Culture is present in every human context, however culture is defined and whatever shape a human context takes. Culture also has a particular identity, and, depending on your definition of culture, culture promotes an identity for the participants (active or passive) in that context, either by belonging to it or by association. When culture generates the identity of its participants, this becomes an ongoing issue of identity formation and maintenance—particularly as contexts intersect, which is the norm in human life and practice as well as the reality for Christians.

I define culture as inseparable from identity and function, and use the following working definition in our discussion:

Culture is the life and practice (in its various expressions) of a collective group (formal or informal, large or small) of persons, the distinction of which relatively both defines who and what they are and determines how they function, thereby being a primary source of their identity and determinant of their function—all of which can operate explicitly or implicitly in a subtle process. Culture is not about an individual person but a social dynamic of persons who belong and/or identify in a context together.

At its earliest stages of development, culture emerges from the life and practice of those persons gathered together, thus culture is defined and determined by them either formally or informally. As that culture is established, its shape remains consistent or firm, with ongoing minor modifications. In the subsequent process of its life and practice, culture essentially takes on a functional “life” of its own to shape its participants; that is to say, those persons become defined by their culture, and thus how they function is also determined by their culture. To be contrary is to go against the norms of culture, or, in other words, be counter-cultural, which for some groups is intentional whereby they evolve by adapting with their own culture in order to survive.

Moreover, since we all participate in some type of collective group, we are all part of a particular culture that defines our person and determines how we function—relatively speaking, of course. To this extent we are never free of culture and always apply our culture to our activities, even in biblical interpretation. Therefore, as the main determinant in our everyday lives, culture works overtly or covertly to encompass how we see what we see, how we do what we do, thus basically has primary say over how we live what we live. The consequence of all this is: Culture is the contextualizing agent in that context, and intentionally or unintentionally we are contextualized by and in that culture, knowingly or not.

Examine this existing reality evolving exponentially in today’s context, and tune-in more carefully to what you see. In this high-tech world, “who” is the most common companion you see persons interacting with, wherever they are, whether in a crowd or alone, whether dining in public or at the family dinner table, or even while driving? That’s right, the companion is a smartphone or similar digital device that preoccupies the primary interaction of many persons today. This is not just a modern phenomenon but the existential reality of contextualized persons living in and by the culture of their surrounding context—a culture that ongoingly shapes, constructs and reconstructs their identity while dominating their daily function, even when going to the bathroom. The culture of the high-tech world has only recently been recognized for its impact on persons, including rewiring their brains from as early as the formative years of childhood. Yet, it is not technology to blame here but its culture contextualizing persons accordingly.

From this micro level let’s zoom out to the macro level to observe the growing systemic context of globalization. The rising tide of globalization is transforming modern societies, which has raised speculation about the sovereignty and autonomy of modern states.[3] Globalization is having a pivotal impact both economically (positive and negative) and politically (responsive or reactionary); and its expanding efforts in general[4] and for U.S. politico-economic policy more specifically[5] need to be recognized and understood. Whether we are aware of it or not, and no matter what we think about it, we all are being contextualized into globalization—contextualized by and in this fragmentary global culture. Despite any good intentions of human achievement for the purpose of so-called human progress, the engulfing reality of global culture is that it is not whole and thus will not contextualize humans in wholeness—just as observed in the efforts to build the tower of Babel (Gen 11:1-9). Having said that, globalization itself (like technology) is not the culprit here but its culture formed by those propagating it.

Whether at the macro level or the micro level, and the spectrum in-between, the culture contextualizing humans in those contexts is neither neutral nor inconsequential. Therefore, as the definitive determinant for human identity and function, culture needs to be understood, addressed, and changed accordingly in order for contextualized humans not to live in reduced human identity and by reduced human function—so that whole ontology and function can emerge.

Christians need to take to heart the definitive paradigm made axiomatic by Jesus (Mk 4:24), and tune in carefully to the culture in their surrounding context: The measure of culture you use will be the perceptual-interpretive mindset you get for the identity and function for both your person and others. Whether we zoom out or zoom in, the common measure of culture has contextualized humans in a reduced measure of anthropology in general, and in the specific reduced measures first and foremost of gender (as witness in the primordial garden),[6] then of race, ethnicity, class, age, and other human characteristics and distinctions. Consequently, this is not only a contextual issue but a systemic problem, both of which Christians need to address.

Since the human context evolved from the primordial garden, the cultures formed in the surrounding contexts of humanity have never been neutral or inconsequential. Intrinsic to the composition of all cultures is the language of sin as reductionism, which underlies composing how culture functions in what it practices. Cultures interpret the language of sin in diverse ways, yet mostly in language without reductionism, even with revisions of sin as reductionism that appear to be favorable or at least neutral and inconsequential. Nevertheless, the language of sin as reductionism still underlies the composition of any and all cultures. This is the intractable condition of the human context that has evolved from the primordial garden, and that has been diversely adapted by and in the cultures of all surrounding human context ever since.

Certainly, Christians have not been immune from being contextualized, and thus immune from having their perceptual-interpretive mindset shaped by the contextualizing culture. The explicit and subtle influence of a culture contextualizing Christians then shapes how we see what see, how we do what we do, how we live therefore what we live—which certainly has permeated how we learn what we learn and how we teach what we teach, thus how our education is what Christian education is. Indeed, culture is neither neutral nor inconsequential; and as Christians participate in their surrounding contexts, we must never assume that we have not been or are not being reduced in our ontology and function by our contexts’ cultures.

Likewise, therefore, the cultures of human contextualization cannot and should not be considered as vital parts of the diversity composing the common good integral to humanity. Yet, this misinformed and misguided perceptual-interpretive mindset of contextualization increasingly prevails in Christian thinking, theology and practice, and further pervades higher theological education and learning. For example, contextualization has become the present-day paradigm for missions and proclaiming the gospel, as if to say “the end justifies the use of any means”; while in theological studies, there is a growing movement to incorporate diverse contextualized views of theology, as if to assume that all these parts will contribute and add up to the whole understanding (as in synesis) necessary to know and understand God—not to mention as an antidote to Western theological hegemony. The results, however, have been composing merely hybrid theology and practice on a fragmentary basis, contrary to God’s whole basis in wholeness—results emerging from naïve acceptance or unexamined tolerance of the surrounding cultural context (as the church in Thyatira, (Rev 2:18-20).

In most Christian thinking (whatever the level), assimilation into the surrounding context is simply a given, since the common alternative of separation and/or isolation from the human context is considered either unrealistic or unreasonable for their theology and practice. Yet, assimilation into the surrounding cultural context comes at a price, which can only be paid by taking on that context’s culture for one’s identity and function (at least in its main aspects). Thus Christians seem to routinely embrace a prevailing culture, or at least readily take on elements of it, to define their identity and determine their function in key ways. But even paying that price comes with a further cost that includes the underpinning for cultures in the surrounding contexts of human life.

From the beginning, the condition prevailing in the human context is reduced ontology and function. This is the common’s inescapable human condition that underpins the diverse cultures of our surrounding contexts, without exception in everyday life even though cultural theories may appear to be exceptions. Accordingly, this common condition is what human contextualization shapes, constructs and sustains unavoidably for those not clearly distinguished from the contextualized persons contextualized by and in that culture. In other words, the further cost for taking on that culture in our surrounding context is also to be reduced in ontology and function—perhaps with variations that simulate appearing unreduced. This subtle process evolves even inadvertently, even with good intentions for assimilating; nevertheless, the consequence is unmistakable:

Reduced ontology and function from God’s whole basis in wholeness, which for all Christians then becomes our default mode whenever we don’t consciously exercise our free will as subject-persons to choose to be different in identity and function from the contextualizing culture—that is, distinguished differently only in the image and likeness of whole-ly God.

So, the pivotal reality facing Christians in all contexts is the choice between these:

Either fall into the default mode of reduced ontology and function formed by the contextualizing culture of our surrounding context, or choose to be counter-cultural (not ideologically or merely pragmatically) in order to be distinguished both from that reducing culture and in whole ontology and function—because, unequivocally, the measure of culture we use will be the measure we get for our ontology and function, nothing more in our everyday life and practice.

What then is the primary culture serving as the main determinant for your most visible identity in daily life that shapes how you practice what you practice?

Allowing culture to be the main determinant for Christians at whatever level contradicts what Paul made imperative for Christians to be the only determinant in our life, both individually and collectively: “Let the uncommon peace of Christ rule in your persons from inner out, since as whole persons of one church body you were called to wholeness” (Col 3:15). This was nonnegotiable for Paul: “Rule” (brabeuo in the imperative) means to judge and arbitrate, thus rule as the only determinant for our persons and life together—that is, the Word’s whole basis in wholeness (the Word’s uncommon peace of Jn 14:27) as the sole (“the One and Only,” Jn 1:18) determinant for the new creation persons of God’s whole-ly church family.

Furthermore, Christians allowing culture to assume primacy for operating as their main determinant in any way also conflicts with following Jesus not merely in our theology but notably in our practice—following where he is in the surrounding context. The relational path of Jesus is intrusive, intruding deeper into the surrounding human contexts, the contexts of the common, while integrally neither being contextualized by it nor tolerating it. By following Jesus, the first aspect of the prevailing (common’s) function that all his followers encounter while following him into these surrounding contexts is culture. Jesus’ intrusive relational path intersects with the pervasive workings of culture, and its influence emerges as the pivotal issues of Jesus’ engagement with culture.

What Jesus ongoingly exposed by his intrusive engagement and consistently made imperative for all his followers is this: The critical need for the cultural shift that he embodied and enacted in order to incarnate being distinguished from that culture while in its context. He summarized this critical cultural shift in his intersection with the surrounding context of Judaism and its prevailing culture contextualizing the identity of God’s people in reduced ontology and function:

“Unless your righteousness—that is, the relational term for distinguishing the whole-integrity of who, what and how you are in your person and relationships—goes deeper than the prevailing righteousness of the leaders of that context, and thus is not distinguished from those practitioners of reductionism commonly associated with God, then you are not relationally involved in my realm of connection to enter the relational context of the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 5:20).

The perceptual-interpretive mindset for this critical cultural shift does not emerge as long as its primary determinant subtly remains the culture of a surrounding context. So, how did Jesus embody and enact the cultural shift critical for us to incarnate being distinguished as his followers?

How Jesus engaged a culture in a particular context was always first with his own culture. Put in relational terms, Jesus always looked at culture theologically because that was his identity: the whole of who, what and how he was in the relational context and process of the whole-ly God. On the one hand, this was not unusual since engaging another culture from one’s own culture is an assumption by which all persons engage a different culture. Yet, on the other hand, Jesus only engaged a culture on his whole basis in wholeness; and we should never assume that his ongoing engagement was not so and thus with anything less at times. More specifically, the Jewish Jesus engaged the Jewish culture but he was not assimilated in that culture. His whole identity was uncommon even to Jewish culture. Therefore, these are assumptions of our own that we have to understand and account for, even as we seek to further understand and more deeply follow Jesus, along with his culture.

To say that Jesus looked at culture theologically must not be separated from the function of his identity. His whole identity always functioned whole in the primacy of God’s culture as the only determinant. Accordingly, his function was also uncommon in the surrounding contexts, which signified the critical cultural shift from those cultures. Foremost, then, his theological lens extended from his whole and uncommon perceptual-interpretive mindset formed by God’s relational language and terms. Thus, theology for Jesus was not about doctrine, propositions of static truth, or systems of beliefs and values—just as the Word exposed in the church in Ephesus (Rev 2:2-4). Though his lens was certainly theologically orthodox (not in a gospel-speak, salvation-speak sense), it was always in conjoint function with orthopraxy (i.e. whole-ly life and practice) in the whole-ly God’s relational context and process for relationship together. Jesus functionally engaged culture not only in orthodoxy but with orthopraxy, with the latter at times appearing to contradict the former, which was an ongoing source of controversy in many of his interactions—notably in a so-called orthodox religious context since his practice was often perceived as counter-cultural. Yet, Jesus’ theological engagement of culture was not for the end result of orthodoxy, or even orthopraxy, but only for the outcome of relationship together and being whole; thus, his engagement was always the relational language expression of communicative action enacting God’s thematic relational response to make whole the human condition (cf. Jn 12:46-47). In other words, he saw culture through the lens of God’s perception and desires, and this primacy defined and determined his response. For Jesus, any other engagement with culture was secondary, which should neither define nor determine what is primary or its shaping primacy—as Jesus demonstrated at the wedding in Cana (Jn 2:1-11).

The significance of all this for both our theology and practice is that Jesus integrally (1) embodied the whole-ly theological trajectory of God vulnerably into the human context, and (2) enacted his uncommon relational path in surrounding contexts only on his whole basis in wholeness. What he embodied cannot be separated from what he enacted; and what he embodied and enacted are distinguished only by how he embodied and enacted his identity and function in surrounding contexts in order to be whole-ly incarnated.

As Jesus embodied God’s communicative action in the contexts of the world, he always enacted God’s relational language with the language of love. Therefore, Jesus did not engage culture “to condemn” (krino, to discriminate between good and evil) the identity it generates, “but to make whole” (sozo, Jn 3:17) its life and practice influenced by reductionism. By the nature of its source, reductionism has always functioned against the whole since creation in the primordial garden. The reductionism intrinsic in culture specifically involved the ontology of the whole person created in the image of the whole-ly God for the relationships together created in likeness of the relational ontology of the Trinity, thus which are necessary in conjoint function to be whole.

Along with his identity as the light, Jesus’ full humanity as the Son of man also fully affirms this creation. By the earthly human life made evident in Jesus’ whole person, human life is sanctified (made whole-ly) in a qualitatively distinct relational practice that is imperative for all his followers to live and experience to be whole as God’s family (as he prayed, Jn 17:19). Here again we see the importance of the cultural shift to the uncommon. Furthermore, their whole-ly life and practice is necessary to be able to live whole in the surrounding cultural context for the world to “believe” (trust) and “know” (experience) that the whole-ly God is extended to them in the relational language of love in order to be part of, and thus no longer “to be apart” from (as he further prayed, Jn 17:21-23). Only the uncommon intrusion of this ontology and function distinguishes God’s whole family in the world, and it would only be uncommon on the basis of whole ontology and function.

Any reduction in life and practice of the whole person and those persons’ relationships together needs to be made whole to fulfill who, what and how they are as God’s creation. Thus, the reduction of what defines human persons (e.g., in a comparative process to stratify human worth or value) needs to be redefined for persons to be made whole. Likewise, the reduction of human relationships from qualitative function and significance (e.g. by diminishing intimate relational involvement or promoting barriers to relational belonging) needs to be transformed for the relationships together necessary to be whole. These reductions are directly composed by the surrounding culture, and its primacy certainly then requires the critical cultural shift enacted by Jesus.

The whole of Jesus, therefore, functioned to engage culture intrusively in the surrounding context for the following purpose: (1) redefine its influence from reductionism, (2) transform its counter-relational work of reductionism, and (3) make whole the human relational condition “to be apart” from God’s whole. His purpose, however, could not be fulfilled if he assimilated into the surrounding culture, but only if he accommodated (not adapted or isolated) his identity and function in that cultural context without letting it have determining primacy. Being accommodated and not assimilated in our identity and function as his followers is a critical distinction for the cultural shift to be a relational reality in any surrounding context.

Jesus’ engagement of culture for his purpose to be, live and make whole involved an irreducible relational process; integrally, this whole relational process was specific to the uncommon relational context of his identity and ontology in the whole-ly God. The dynamic involvement of this integral relational process cannot be categorized by typologies of the relation of Jesus and culture. The classic typology of Richard Niebuhr, for example, is of initial interest, yet this is a static framework insufficient to account for Jesus’ intrusion on culture.^{^[8]} This includes variations or refinements of his typology.^{^[9]} The dynamic relational involvement of Jesus in the surrounding contexts of the world was an ongoing process of engaging culture both to be whole and to make whole, which also required being vulnerable with his person and intrusive in his relationships in order to make qualitative relational connection with those contextualized by culture.

A different framework is needed to account for the multifaceted nature of this process and to understand the whole of Jesus’ various actions engaging culture, which then also points to the need for a new perceptual-interpretive mindset. This involves three issues that Jesus ongoingly addressed to help us define why and how he engaged culture and aspects of it. Basic to his approach, Jesus vulnerably involved his whole person in the life and practice of a culture to function for the invariable and thus nonnegotiable purpose to be whole and to make whole. Therefore, the integrating theme “to be whole” defined his actions engaging culture, which were contingent on one or more of three qualifying issues involving a culture’s life and practice:

All cultures involve more than one of these qualifying issues, and engaging various aspects of a culture’s life and practice usually involves an interaction of these qualifying issues. Culture then cannot be responded to in its surrounding context with a predetermined set of behavioral responses—which tends to seek merely the conformity of others—but rather only by being predisposed with the relational involvement to be whole and to make whole. This is how Jesus engaged culture and why.

In the process of cultural engagement, Jesus in full identity appears to transcend culture (cf. Niebuhr’s categories, “Christ against culture”), yet while always relationally involved in the surrounding cultural context (cf. “Christ in paradox” or “Christ of culture”) with what amounts to his minority identity (cf. “Christ above culture”) to make it whole (cf. “Christ the transformer of culture”). The relational interaction of his full identity with his minority identity (signifying his whole-ly identity) integrally constitutes the qualitative distinction necessary to be distinguished whole in the surrounding cultural context, which is indistinguishable without also being uncommon (cf. Lev 10:10). Without Jesus’ uncommon whole basis in uncommon wholeness, there is neither basis to make whole culture’s life and practice, nor the significance to be compelling for the human condition.

The ongoing process of engaging culture both to be whole and to make whole involves this integral process of vulnerable and intrusive relational involvement unique to Jesus’ relational path into the surrounding contexts. Yet, even the term ‘relational’ is insufficient for what Jesus embodied and how he enacted his identity and function. Relational has become a more visible adjective (perhaps buzzword) used today for theology and practice, but the word has not appeared because of the critical cultural shift essential to be relational in how Jesus was and continues to be with his whole-ly person.

We cannot be followers of Jesus without following his whole-ly person on the intrusive relational path into our contexts and engaging those cultures as he embodied and enacted—nothing less and no substitutes for his uncommon whole basis in wholeness. Therefore, the critical cultural shift is not optional for us but, simply, essential to “Follow me” because to follow him is always on his relational terms and never revised by our terms, even with good intentions.

Jesus never assimilated into a surrounding context by and in its culture. He always accommodated his identity and function in that cultural context without compromise. Thereby, Jesus’ engagement of culture in the surrounding context was always in congruence with, and thus the definitive extension of, the whole-ly God’s thematic relational response to the human condition to make whole his creation. This is the irreducible and nonnegotiable function of the whole-ly God’s relational work of grace only for new covenant relationship together in love, which extends into his church family on his intrusive relational path. That is, this relational outcome will extend into a church that makes no assumptions about the culture of its surrounding context, and thus functions in relation to that culture by the three qualifying issues. When the conscious resolve of this ongoing relational process does not clearly distinguish the minority (uncommon) identity of church ontology and function, churches by default become co-opted by prevailing cultures and thereby seduced in their theology and practice to follow an incomplete (fragmentary, not whole) Jesus on a different path—the pivotal issue facing Peter at his footwashing and his post-resurrection interaction with Jesus about the language of love.

Critically then, “Amend your ways and your doings from inner out and let me be involved with you in this surrounding context…. For if you truly undergo the critical cultural shift, then I will be relationally involved with you in this context together” (Jer 7:3-7).

It is imperative that Christians discover their perceptual-interpretive culture, so they can understand the mindset used to identify who they are and also whose they are. The same perceptual-interpretive culture is the main determinant for their theology and practice.

Christian theology and practice have long been dominated by Western culture. The main determinant for this still-existing condition is culture, not merely Western interpretations of theology. This prevailing culture certainly has not been neutral and has been obviously consequential for global Christianity—just as all cultures are neither neutral nor inconsequential. Whether in the global North or global South, regional and local contexts’ cultures have the same effect on theology and practice, even though a southern context may compete with the West to be the main determinant. Regardless of where, the pivotal issue is: Whose culture determines our theology and practice, and thereby does our theology and practice call for the critical cultural shift embodied and enacted by Jesus?

Christians outside the global North would rightfully say “Yes, indeed!” Yet, those Christians cannot substitute their own culture as recourse for their theology and practice, that is, without also hearing Jesus rightfully and emphatically say “Yes, indeed!” in calling for the correct cultural shift.

Let’s limit our focus to the U.S. and consider the existing condition here of evangelicals. Evangelicalism is not a monolith around the world and certainly not in the U.S.[10] In the U.S., however, evangelicals form a curious, unique, unpredictable (take your pick) diversity, which not surprisingly maintains incompatible divisions between them. Much to the chagrin of many evangelicals, the public perception of evangelicals lumps them together as one entity, if not always in theology certainly in practice. Yet, the incompatible divisions among evangelicals have less to do with their theology and more to do with their practice, both of which are influenced and shaped by culture in the surrounding contexts. Whether it is social, political, economic, or a combination of factors underpinning a surrounding culture, that culture has become a main determinant forming the perceptual-interpretive mindset of evangelicals. For example, identity politics has been a key determinant for many evangelicals’ identity and function, notably among high-visibility leaders. Moreover, culture has been the key for the increased intensity among various evangelical groups to promote nationalism, no matter the repercussions for other persons, peoples and nations.[11] I don’t’ think the current “Make America Great Again” movement would have impetus, perhaps even survive, if evangelicals didn’t support its nationalism at the forefront.[12] In the midst of this divisive condition, there are certainly evangelical counter-activists, whose source of identity and function is more ambiguous—though they may have the appearance of counter-cultural—and thus is not clearly distinguished as emerging from the critical cultural shift embodied and enacted by Jesus. Then there are the many evangelicals who are simply silent, who may identify their theology and practice as evangelical but whose identity and function just mirror the silent majority composing the U.S.

Whatever variation of evangelicals is highlighted, what is illuminated is the urgent need for all evangelicals to discover the perceptual-interpretive culture shaping their theology and practice, so that they can make the critical cultural shift to be true followers of the whole-ly Word, and not merely identified as ‘people of the Book’. Of course, this is assuming that they would make the choice to follow the Word as their primary priority.

For our further clarification and correction, consider the following narrative of “The Relative”:

This is the story of a relative of mine, whom I had never met before yet who specifically came to see me. Since I didn’t know him, we didn’t seem to have much in common. As he told me a lot about himself, his history and personal background were interesting but not enough to really captivate my attention. We interestingly came from the same extended family but that seemed so long ago; though I was informed, it was just information for my family background file—and I wasn’t interested in a DNA profile to confirm what he was telling me.

Then he seemed to share himself quite vulnerably and expressed some intimate moments that I thought were reasons to celebrate and commemorate. So, I had special dinners for him during such visits, even held a party for him and gave special recognition to the honored place of this relative in our family. According to our tradition, the entire family and friends gathered together to have a festive time, everyone enjoying the designated occasion to celebrate. Everyone, that is, except our relative of honor. I noticed him in the corner quietly observing our family tradition.

I went over to ask him why he wasn’t participating as the honored member tonight. He looked at me with eyes I’ll never forget. He shared further with me why he came to visit me. As tears filled his eyes, I became tense by the intimate expression from his face. It was as if I could see right into the interior of his heart—completely open for me to experience face to face.

Disarmed at first, I didn’t know what to do. I nervously looked around for others to join us, but they were all occupied. He kept looking at me with those eyes, as if to say “It’s not about what you do.” Then something shifted inside of me—my brain, my mind, my heart, perhaps all—and it started to dawn on me. In contrast to my family, for my relative it wasn’t about having dinners, party, celebration, and recognition. That was all secondary to what was primary for him. He came to be directly involved with me face to face, not merely to do things together or even to occupy a space as a relative in my family. He was sharing his whole person vulnerably with me for relationship together, and I was missing his person being occupied (OK, maybe preoccupied) with the secondary.

Up until that moment, I really didn’t get it. I thought I was doing what I should by focusing on the history, important information and related things about my relative. While they were interesting and even cause to celebrate, to be honest with you those things really didn’t grab my heart—not as his eyes did. Now that I began to really see my relative with different eyes, I can also start to see my need to change how I engage in relationships, that is, if I want to truly know him and the significance of his eyes.

In that conscious shift, I got up and politely excused everyone from the party, with the assurance we would gather together at a new time as well as in a new way. Then, still a little nervous, I turned to my relative to make connection—the kind of connection I now better understand that he came to have with me. Indeed, this was the good news I had always assumed informed me.

As you pay close attention to this incarnation narrative, what do you see, what do you hear, and what do you learn? As you make yourself vulnerable, can you further discover the perceptual-interpretive culture that’s used in your theology and practice—maybe by also looking into “those eyes.”

The subtle consequence of any and all perceptual-interpretive cultures in the surrounding context is to displace followers of Jesus to a different path than Jesus’ relational path—just like those on the road to Emmaus (cf. Mt 7:13). To be on a different path than Jesus has major consequences. In contrast to what Jesus embodied in his whole person and enacted in how he functioned whole-ly, persons are reshaped from inner out to outer in, and relationships are reconstructed accordingly with secondary matter to substitute for what is primary; and on this reduced basis, church practice also is established and extended in the academy. We cannot ignore the role culture plays in these consequences because its seductive influence is far-reaching on shaping our person, our relationships, and our churches and academy. Consider further, it is vital for us to examine church practice of worship and what determines its shape, including contemporary worship and music—as the popular church in Sardis had to be awakened to (Rev 3:1-2). How congruent is this worship with who and what the Father seeks in those worshipping him (Jn 4:23-24)? And how much does our worship correlate to what Jesus critiqued of worship on his whole basis in wholeness (Mt 15:8-9)? We cannot assume that the seductive influence of culture is not present, has not diminished our worship,^{^[13]} and has not co-opted us from the primary, the primacy of reciprocal relationship together without the veil, and indeed has not removed us from the intrusive relational path of Jesus. Such an assumption mirrors the assumption from the primordial garden that “you will not surely be reduced.”

Besides the global church, this also raises a serious challenge to the multicultural church today—wherever it might exist or be considered as the church model—and whether the basis for its composition needs the critical cultural shift. More urgently, what prevails in your theology and practice, the secondary or the primary?

To counter the reductionism composing culture in the human context from the beginning, and to neutralize and transform culture’s determinant influence, the incarnated Word ongoingly communicates to us clarification and correction in his relational language of love in order to be together intimately in his realm of connection. Yet, whenever his relational love language is transposed to referential language, it loses the relational significance of “those eyes.” Furthermore, be alerted: When he speaks for himself rather than others speaking for him, he speaks in tough-love relational language, thus neither idealized nor romanticized. Therefore, it is imperative for all of us to “consider carefully how you listen” (Lk 8:18), and “pay attention closely to what you hear” (Mk 4:24).

The palpable Word with the Spirit corrected the church in Thyatira to expose the reality that “you tolerate at best and assimilate at worst the surrounding cultural context and form a subtle hybrid in your theology and practice, notably with epistemological illusions of the Word and ontological simulations of his identity and function” (Rev 2:20). Then “the significance of his eyes” was clarified: “All the churches (including the academy) need to know that I am the one who searches minds and hearts, and I will respond to each of you accordingly” (Rev 2:23).

[1] Quoted and discussed in Hans Kung, The Beginning of All Things: Science and Religion (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 15-24.

[2] Thomas S. Kuhn discussed the human bias shaping scientific theory in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2^nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970).

[3] This analysis of the process of globalization is undertaken by David Helm, Anthony McGrew, David Goldblatt and Jonathan Perrraton, Global Transitions: Politics, Economics and Culture (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1999). See also Peter Heslam, ed., Globalization and the Good (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004).

[4] Vinoth Ramachandra engages this discussion in Subverting Global Myths: Theology and the Public Issues Shaping Our World (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008).

[5] A discussion of U.S. empire building and the role of evangelicalism is undertaken in Bruce Ellis and Peter Goodwin Heltzel, eds., Evangelicals and Empire: Christian Alternatives to the Political Status Quo (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2008).

[6] This discussion of gender is made integrally by Kary A. Kambara, The Gender Equation in Human Identity and Function: Examining Our Theology and Practice, and Their Essential Equation (Gender Study: 2018). Online at https://www.4X12.org.

[7] I extend the discussion previously made on The Gospel of Transformation: Distinguishing the Discipleship and Ecclesiology Integral to Salvation (Transformation Study: 2015). Online at http://www.4X12.org.

[8] H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture 50^th-anniversary ed. (N.Y.: Harper San Francisco, 2001).

[9] See, for example, Glen H. Stassen, D.M. Yeager, John Howard Yoder, Authentic Transformation: A New Vision of Christ and Culture, (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996), and also Gordon Lynch, Understanding Theology and Popular Culture, (Australia: Blackwell Publishing, 2005), 93-110.

[10] See Brian C. Stiller, Todd M. Johnson, Karen Stiller and Mark Hutchinson, eds., for the current state of Evangelicals Around the World: A Global Handbook for the 21^st Century (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2015).

[11] Further discussion on this key issue is found in Bruce Ellis Benson and Peter Goodwin Heltzel, eds., Evangelicals and Empire: Christian Alternatives to the Political Status Quo (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2008).

[12] In an OP-ED, Randall Balmer recently pointed to an underlying bias of racism in white evangelicals’ political agenda, “Evangelical show their true colors,” Los Angeles Times, August 23, 2017.

[13] To better understand the shaping influence of culture on worship, see Kary A. Kambara, A Theology of Worship: ‘Singing’ a New Song to the Lord (2011). Online at http://4X12.org. See also Hermeneutic of Worship Language: Understanding Communion with the Whole of God (Worship Language Study, 2013). Online at http://4X12.org.