Ch 5 The Trajectory of Our Interpretations and Path of Our Understanding

Do not conform to the reductionism you has when you lived without knowing God.

You have been anointed by the Holy One in relational terms…the anointing

teaches you in relational language about all things, and is real and is not virtual,

In a recent reprint of a “Peanuts” comic, Linus raises a theological question to Charlie Brown: “When you die and go to heaven, are you graded on a percentage or a curve?” Assuming the posture of a scholar, Charlie asserts “on a curve, naturally.” “How can you be so sure?” replies Linus. Charlie pointedly answered, “I’m always sure about things that are a matter of opinion.”[1] This illustrates the diverse interpretations of the Bible shaped by a biased perceptual-interpretive mindset in need of clarification and correction; Charlie’s would have been clarified and corrected if he listened carefully to the words from God (as in Eze 7:3; Heb 10:30; Rev 20:12). As it was, his interpretation didn’t align with the theological trajectory of the Word—a common condition among Christians, even about the most basic issue of the gospel’s composition.

Just like Jesus, the transformed Jewish Paul (his identity and function, Phil 3:4-11) incarnated the pivotal fight against reductionism and for the wholeness of the gospel. He confronted interpretations of the gospel that essentially were “no gospel at all” (Gal 1:6-7). With the assumptions most Christians make today about the gospel, we don’t hear a theological question raised about its composition. Yet, I would be interested to see how many current interpretations of the gospel that Paul would also confront in the same way, including how fragmented the incarnated Word has become (similar to 1 Cor 1:12-13). Are our theology and practice in effect composed by recycled interpretations of the gospel of the Word that are on a different theological trajectory and relational path than the incarnated (not simply embodied) Word?

In the realm of biblical interpretations, past and present, most interpretations don’t distinguish in fullness their theological trajectory. Thus, most Christians are unaware that their identity and function are also on a different relational path than the Word, the way necessary to enter the incarnated realm of connection wherein they are able to distinguish the integral relational context and process essential to know and understand God. Only the incarnated Word along with the Spirit provide the clarification and correction, so that “his anointing teaches you in relational language about all things, and is real and not virtual” (1 Jn 2:27). Along the trajectory and path of the Word and Spirit, Paul and his cohorts John and Peter confronted the diverse forms of reductionism that evolved in the early church (as above Scripture illuminate), the diversity of which continues to evolve today. The underlying reductionism rendering Christians on a different theological trajectory and relational path than the incarnated Word emerges and evolves in three crucial measures (‘three dynamic dimensions’) for our identity and function, and thus for our theology and practice:

1. The underpinning shift of human interpretation from ‘God speaking for God’ in communication with the words from God, to ‘others speaking for God’ by transmitting information about the words of God—which evolves with the subtle challenging shift of language that transposes the words from God in relational language to the words of God in referential language, and then pervades our thinking to form our perceptual-interpretive mindset in those fragmentary referential terms.

2. The essential shift of anthropology—which should not be confused with a shift from creation to evolution—that converts the created theological anthropology defining human ontology and function on the basis of the inner-out whole, to an ontology and function reduced on an outer-in fragmentary basis, the adaptations of which have certainly evolved into a diversity of persons and peoples.

3. The primary shift of the human context from the primacy of God’s uncommon (holy) relational context and process to giving primacy to the common’s determinant context and process, which prevail over our surrounding contexts with subtle and seductive processes that influence, shape and dominate our identity and function, and thus our theology and education as well as our practice and learning.

These three crucial measures emerged from the primordial garden, and their dynamic dimensions have evolved from that beginning. Until we recognize these dynamic dimensions of reductionism and thereby understand its underlying workings—which are both necessary to compose our language of sin and to confront reductionism’s presence and influence in our theology and practice—we will not be on the same theological trajectory and relational path as the incarnated Word. The consequential reality is that we will not be transformed in our ontology and function on his whole basis in wholeness, which is consequential both for individuals to be subject-persons and persons together to be relationally involved as his new creation church family in the very likeness of the whole-ly Trinity. For the reality of this incarnated relational outcome to be real and not virtual, we have to counter resolutely these three shifts of reductionism by shifting from the status quo (in all its variations) in our theology and practice to the new dimensions enacted by the incarnated Word for our incarnated ontology and function—with and for nothing less and no substitutes.

Maybe you don’t always feel sure about your interpretations as Charlie Brown does, and perhaps you don’t even think you’re speaking for God. Yet, the fact is: If you are not listening to the words from God in relational language, you are only focused on fragmentary words of God in referential language; and if you are narrowly focused on the information about those words of God, then you are (1) by implication sure about your interpretations to even make any interpretations on such a narrowed-down basis, and also (2) by default actually speaking for God on your reduced basis, or else you would simply be silent by having no significant basis for making interpretations of the Word.

This is an uncomfortable, unnerving, or even unacceptable account of theology and practice today. But the reality exists that our current status quo remains status quo without significant qualitative relational changes because we haven’t shifted the underpinning of our interpretations from its prevailing referential language back to the primary relational language of God (the original language of the Bible). This reality is evident in this fact: Whenever we are not consciously listening to the words from God communicated only in relational language, we are by default reading (perhaps hearing) the words of God transmitted in the alternate referential language. Thus, in our explicit or implicit thinking, we continue to ask “Did God say that?” with the perceptual-interpretive mindset that answers in effect “Yes, this is what God said and meant by that.” This is the presumptuous mindset, notably of “the wise and learned” (Lk 10:21), that thinks it knows sufficiently to interpret and speak (e.g. Mt 21:15-16). God’s response is, just as Job was clarified and corrected: “Who is this that obscures my words with interpretations without knowing?” (Job 38:2) As Job further experienced humbly, the only alternative that would shift from his reductionism is to make one’s person vulnerable directly to the words from God speaking: “Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things beyond my narrow thinking for me to know. You said, ‘Listen now, and I will speak’” (Job 42:3-4, NIV). So, Job’s whole persons shifted from the reduced underpinning of his interpretation and learned to listen with new ears and eyes in God’s realm of connection (42:5).

Before that shift, what Job and his friends engaged in was theological discourse, which commonly exists among God’s people and has evolved in the church and has been adapted in the academy at all levels of theological education. This is not surprising when the underpinning shift of biblical and theological interpretation has not been understood or even recognized; and this always prompts Jesus’ disarming question for even mature and learned interpreters: “Why is my language not clear to you?”

When the theology composed in the words from God is transposed to referential language about the words of God, there is disconnection from the trajectory and path of God’s qualitative realm of relational connection—leaving God’s presence and involvement elusive, vague, forgotten or lost. Such theology thereby enters the trajectory and path of the quantitative realm of information and gets connected to the informed discourse commonly prevailing in the surrounding contexts of human life—with boasts about discovery, biblical literacy and scholarly parentheses. Nothing changes in this status quo until this underpinning shift is countered.

When the trajectory of our interpretations gets disconnected from God’s qualitative realm of relational connection, the path of our understanding is incomplete, fragmentary, misleading, and/or misguided. Variations of this status quo in theology and practice were clarified and corrected by the Word and Spirit, in order to reconnect the trajectory of churches and change their path of understanding:

The path of understanding for the church at Sardis was incomplete, despite their success and esteemed reputation (Rev 3:1-2); for the church at Ephesus, their correct theology and dedicated practice were fragmentary, giving priority to the secondary over the primary (Rev 2:1-4); for the church at Laodicea, their perceptual-interpretive mindset was misinformed and thus misleading, defining their identity by the vast amount of their resources (Rev 3:17-19); for the church at Thyatira, their tolerance of the surrounding context was misguided, creating a hybrid theology and practice (Rev 2:19-20,23).

All these variations of the path of understanding exist and continue to evolve in churches today. Nothing changes this status quo until the trajectory of their interpretations is transformed for the path of understanding in wholeness. Urgent update: “Listen! I am standing at church doors, knocking; if any of you listen to my voice communicating in relational language, I will come in to you and your trajectory and path will be reconnected with me face to face” (Rev 3:20). Who has shifted from hearing these ‘good news’ words in referential language in order to listen to how the Word communicated them?

This unavoidably faces us again with the pivotal issue of how we see the Bible, which determines both what we see in the Bible and learn from the Word. If the Bible is explicitly or implicitly our primary reference book, then we will use it to discover discursive information to build our biblical literacy, from which we may develop informed parentheses for theology and practice (as fill the shelves of Christian bookstores/distributors, cf. Ecc 12:12). The issue that keeps emerging because we haven’t shifted from this status quo is simply: What we learn evolves from how we see the Bible. For example, the Word (Logos) can be conceptualized (as in early variations of Gnosticism), or could even be formalized (as in the Reformation) and idealized (as in evangelicalism), such that the Word (as written in cursive relational terms) is in effect no longer incarnate (not merely the embodiment of God). That is to say, there is a subtle disconnect from the realm of connection for God’s presence and involvement, which are incarnated only by the Word’s relational context and process. This disconnection may not be apparent in our theology when the doctrine of the incarnation is formalized; it is, however, evident in our practice when the Word’s relational context and process are not incarnated.

The reality of God’s presence and involvement is only virtual in doctrine and doesn’t become real until experienced directly in the incarnated Word’s relational context and process. Moreover, the inescapable relational consequence of this virtual reality is to reduce the face-to-face, person-to-person communication from God merely to discursive bits of information about God (as in digitized interpretations). Whatever level of learning all this information may possess, their integrity no longer has the relational significance and purpose of God’s revelation composing the Bible (as Paul illuminated, 1 Cor 2:9-12, cf. Ps 67:1-2; 119:130,135). All this parallels how modern technology has rendered communication in the digital age.

The reduced perceptual-interpretive mindset formed by referential language has evolved into the perceptual-interpretive culture pervading the church and prevailing in the academy. To counter the underpinning shift of Christian interpretation, therefore, also requires the critical cultural shift unmistakably distinguished from this perceptual-interpretive culture, so that its determinant effects are negated and transformed. Certainly, such a cultural shift raises tension in the status quo and also concerns for those who engage this shift; this is understandable because in any perceptual-interpretive mindset the shift would be considered distinctly counter-cultural, and thus threaten existing theology and practice. That’s why it is indispensable. This critical cultural shift interacts reflexively with the new dimension incarnated by the Word, the dimension which incarnates “new eyes” (as Job experienced) for how to see the incarnated Word to determine what to see in the whole-ly Word. The shift to this new dimension together with the critical cultural shift are integral to counter the underpinning shift of Christian interpretation.

Yet, as Job would testify, “new eyes” does not emerge from our discovery or efforts at biblical literacy. This further faces us with the fact that how we learn determines what we learn, and the reality that whom we learn from determines the nature and significance of what we learn. The urgent question then is: In real life, not ideally, do we learn the Bible from human effort and interpretations as the primary determinant for how we learn? Or do we learn God’s Word by being taught by the whole-ly Word (the Holy One in 1 Jn 2:20,27) as the primary determinant rather than by the scope of human effort? Certainly, the line between these two determinants is not always distinct, but what is primary and what is only secondary is always evident in how we learn what we learn. Consider what is primary in the learning progression of Psalm 119:13, 18, 72, 130—and experience what Job learned. “New eyes” only emerges from the primacy of the incarnated Word enacted to incarnate this new dimension necessary to counter the underpinning shift of human interpretations and the reductionism underlying human efforts.

In support and further illumination of the experiential reality of Job’s “new eyes,” John makes this definitive declaration that distinguishes God’s theological trajectory and relational path for all of us the share in together: “You have been anointed by the Holy One in relational terms…the anointing that you received from him abides in you from inner out, and so you do not need anyone to teach you in referential language. But as his anointing teaches you in relational language about all things, and is real and is not virtual, and just as it has taught you his relational terms, abide intimately with your whole person from inner out with him in the primacy of relationship together” (1 Jn 2:20,27). When we are ongoingly involved with him in the primacy of reciprocal relationship together, we can count on the Holy One also for any necessary clarification and correction for our interpretations and understanding.

We either embrace the theological trajectory and relational path of the Holy One’s vulnerable presence and relational involvement, and thereby counter reductionism in our theology and practice. Or we disconnect to engage a different trajectory and path, and thereby reinforce the status quo and sustain reductionism in our theology and practice.

When the persons in the primordial garden were told “you will not die”—contrary to what God had told them—they certainly must have believed in this alternative fact or fake news. This demonstrated the power of language not only to subtly express contrary thought but also to form alternate thinking in diverse forms—thinking that is subtly misled and then misguided, as evident in theological learning and education. At that turning point, the fact is that they didn’t literally die. Most Christians believe that if you disobey the Word, your life will experience death literally. If, however, the word ‘die’ were replaced by the word ‘reduced’, then Christians likely would believe that you will not literally be reduced in your life, present and future. What do we need to understand about these persons, whether in the primordial garden or in everyday life today? The dynamic dimension that evolved from the beginning was the language conflict and barrier that emerged from the first crucial measure signifying the underpinning shift of our interpretations. The issue from the beginning and today does not revolve around what is literal but centers on what is essential and thus primary. The first measure’s language barrier prevents making this clear distinction and thereby clouds distinguishing what’s essential and primary.

Therefore, the first dynamic dimension measuring our identity and function interacts with the second crucial measure signifying the essential shift of our theological anthropology. This essential shift reduces our ontology and function literally (intrinsically, if not also extrinsically); this is the human reality made ambiguous by alternative facts, revised by a reduced perceptual-interpretive mindset, or simply not understood in the language barrier of referential terms. Most importantly, the essential shift of the human person is the epicenter for the three crucial measures of reductionism’s dynamic dimensions prevailing in the human context for human life.

In order to counter the essential shift of the human person, we need to understand the critical reference point when persons shifted in their ontology and function. This reference point pivots between (1) human ontology and function constituted in the image and likeness of whole-ly God, or (2) human ontology and function composed by human terms in the form of comparative human likeness. This critical reference point pivoted in the primordial garden, when those persons shifted from their image and likeness of God (persons “both naked and were not ashamed,” Gen 2:25) to their comparative human likeness (“they knew that they were naked and covered up,” 3:7). At that critical juncture, their persons were deconstructed from the whole ontology and function from inner out and reconstructed in the reduced ontology and function from outer in. The dynamic dimension of this essential shift is inseparable from the subtle transaction involving the underpinning shift of their interpretations. This makes evident the power of referential language both to form alternate thinking and to change reality from real to virtual. Essentially, reality changed from the real of whole ontology and function in God’s likeness to the virtual of reduced ontology and function in human likeness—and distinguishing the real from the virtual has been an ongoing problem for human persons in general and Christian persons in particular ever since.

From this beginning, the pivoting of this critical reference point also vacillates between (1) person-consciousness of one’s identity and function in the wholeness of God’s likeness, or (2) self-consciousness of one’s identity and function in the comparative process of human likeness. These are not psychological concepts of the human person but dynamic dimensions that measure our identity and function in everyday life. As witnessed in the primordial garden, person-consciousness is the distinct consciousness of persons defined and their relationships determined in invariable wholeness from their inner depth to their outer composition. Unlike chameleons changing according to their surrounding context, whole persons and relationships are integrated from inner out according to the qualitative image of the uncommon God and the relational likeness of the whole of God—the whole-ly God, the Trinity. Therefore, the created wholeness of persons and relationships is irreversible—that is, unless they shift to human terms and thereby reconfigure their person and relationships from the outer in (demonstrated in Gen 3:6-7). The shift included going from person-consciousness from inner out to an outer-in focus on their self, thus establishing the self-consciousness prevailing in the human context (including churches) that so preoccupies persons and relationships. This shift shapes persons and relationships to the subtle influences of the surrounding human context and thus to the captivating influence of reductionism and its counter-relational workings. Can you see how this critical reference point pivots in your own life and in Christian contexts?

To continue to be whole is a qualitative function of person-consciousness that focuses on the person from inner out, that is, on the whole person. Yet, the whole person is not a simple object operating within the parameters of a predetermined condition or behavioral pattern. Rather, contrary to some theories of the person, the whole person is a complex subject whose function includes human agency composed by the will that further distinguishes the person’s uniqueness created by God.[2]

Yet, a complex subject cannot be oversimplified in its human agency. A qualifier is raised by genetic limitations of brain function (e.g. mentally challenged), those suffering brain dysfunction (e.g. Alzheimer’s) and mind disorders that appear to lack human agency or lose human will—seemingly rendering them simple objects. This observation can only be made of a person from outer in; and any of its conclusions can neither account for variable ontology and function nor explain reduced ontology and function. While certain qualitative and relational functions may demonstrate a lack, if not appear lost, this involves the complexity of the human subject. The qualitative innermost constituting the uniqueness and human agency of the person functions integrally in the person as a whole, thus never separated from the body (whatever its condition), for example, in the spiritual substance of the soul, nor determined solely by the physical workings of the body. Regardless of any lack in the physical workings of the body, the qualitative innermost of the whole person still functions without being determined by the body and without being apart from the body in a separate function of the soul. How do we account for these persons then?

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

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

As a complex subject in the human context, the human will is responsible for the perceptual-interpretive mindset used to focus either inner out or outer in on the person, albeit with the influence of the surrounding context. Person-consciousness is intrinsic to being created whole but ongoing person-consciousness involves the person’s will. The person’s choice also can include using a lens focused on the person from outer in, which then shifts from person-consciousness to self-consciousness (as witnessed in the primordial garden). The vacillation between person-consciousness and self-consciousness is a reality of human agency that all persons in general assume by the function of their will, and that all Christians in particular are responsible for in living with whole ontology and function or reduced ontology and function—necessitating the careful and vulnerable examination of God’s penetrating questions, “Where are you?” and “what are you doing here?” (1 Kgs 19:9,13) And the further reality from the beginning needing to be understood is that self-consciousness and its mindset of outer in have become the default choice. Unless this reality is addressed with the reality of human agency, the default mode will prevail in human consciousness and the perceptual-interpretive mindset used. Moreover, this process of reality is nonnegotiable and thus is not amendable by a hybrid consciousness.

Along with the mindset used for the person and the human consciousness engaged, the human will is also responsible for the type of work engaged in. Given the reciprocal nature of whole relationships together, relational work is primary. How this work is perceived and the extent to which it is engaged—if it is perceived or engaged at all—unfold from the person’s will. For example, if the deliberate choice is not made to engage the primacy of relational work, secondary work becomes the primary focus either by intention or by default; the latter is always easier to engage, and social media today has made that the convenient choice. In other words, the will is central to what ontology and function emerges from the person. Therefore, our theological anthropology must be able to account for variable ontology and function, and then counter any essential shift of basic anthropology. The soul of dualism and supervenience of nonreductive physicalism are insufficient to explain human agency and to define whole ontology and function. For example, the qualitative sensitivity and relational awareness of person-consciousness are not defined merely by a soul, nor is their lack explained by supervenience.

Person-consciousness and the primacy of relational work are integral and thus inseparable for the whole ontology and function created by God. We cannot integrate person-consciousness with mere simple association with others, nor can we engage the primacy of relational work with self-consciousness and expect the relationship to have significant involvement. Person-consciousness is relational work, the primacy of which distinguishes the relational involvement of the whole person defined from inner out. The integral interaction between person-consciousness and relational work is both irreducible and nonnegotiable, which is essential to be in the image and likeness of whole-ly God. Yet—and this is crucial to understand and recognize—the pervasive (and default) mode of self-consciousness uses illusions and simulations to counter the real with the virtual.

This points us directly back to the human (our) condition resulting from the essential shift of our anthropology. It is evident today that there is a critical gap in our understanding of the human condition, and perhaps a failure to take the human condition seriously. Directly interrelated, and most likely its determinant, a reduced theological anthropology not only fails to address the depth of the human condition but in reality obscures its depth, reinforces its breadth, or even conforms to this inescapable and unavoidable condition. The repercussions for us, of course, are that we do not account for our own practice of reductionism, and, interrelated, that we do not address our own function in the human condition; and this could subtly exist even if we are involved in changing the status quo.

Our function in the human condition manifests in three notable areas, which are the three interrelated issues of ongoing major importance for ontology and function:

These ongoing issues are the three inescapable issues for our ontology and function needing accountability. The pivotal shift from “embodied whole from inner out and not confused, disappointed (“ashamed”) in relationship together” to “embodied parts from outer in (self-conscious nakedness) and reduced to relational distance” has ongoing consequences; and their implications directly challenge our theological anthropology and hold us accountable for its assumptions of ontology and function.

This shift to reductionism expressed in these inescapable issues for our ontology and function further expresses itself in interaction with the following three unavoidable issues for all practice that are necessary to account for in all moments:

Regardless of who we are and what our place is in the human context, we all must account ongoingly for the type of person presented, the nature of our communication and the level of involvement engaged in our relationships. These are unavoidable issues that interact with the three inescapable issues, which together influence and shape our lives and need accountability even in the most typical and common expressions along the full width of the spectrum locating anything less and any substitutes of the whole.

The qualitative and relational aspects in human life necessary for whole ontology and function are neither sufficiently addressed nor deeply accounted for in theological anthropology discourse—including with the prominence of dualism, the emergence of supervenience, and the focus on relationality. In spite of recent focus on the latter, there appears to be a status quo in theology and function above which we rarely rise—perhaps evident of a lack of qualitative sensitivity and relational awareness—and which indicates our need for a critical and pivotal shift from reductionism back to the whole. This prompts a related question for theological anthropology: On what basis is the human condition defined and its resolution determined? The answer is either good news in relational terms or so-so news in referential terms, or perhaps disappointing news because it lacks qualitative and relational significance.

The ‘three dynamic dimensions’ composed by reductionism converge at the epicenter of our anthropology to measure the existing condition of our persons and relationships in daily life. Therefore, to counter reductionism in our ontology and function, we need to broaden and deepen our understanding of sin to fully account for the human condition in our midst, notably efforts of self-determination and the human shaping of relationships. If we think that the human condition is about sin but understand sin only in terms of conventional moral-ethical failure (e.g. disobedience in the garden), then we do not account for the loss of the qualitative and the relational in everyday human life (even in the church and academy) that God clearly distinguished in created ontology and function of human persons—that qualitative image and relational likeness distinguishing not just God but the whole-ly God. The relational consequence “to be apart” (not merely “to be alone,” Gen 2:18) unfolding from the primordial garden is the human condition of the loss of the primacy of whole relationship together and its prevailing relational distance, separation, brokenness, and thus loneliness. Moreover, the human (our) condition even threatens the integrity of the human brain[3] as further evidence that this condition “is not good, pleasant, beautiful, delightful, precious, correct, righteous for persons to be apart from whole relationship together.”

How we tend to do relationship and what prevails in our relationships today are reductions of the primacy of whole relationships that God created in the Trinity’s likeness; and the human shaping of relationships composes the human relational condition, which then is reflected, reinforced or sustained by any and all human shaping in a reflexive loop.

Furthermore, the whole person from inner out signified by the qualitative function of the heart needs renewed focus for understanding the human condition and needs to be restored in our theology and function—yet, merely discussing spirituality is inadequate. We cannot avoid addressing the human heart (our own to start) and the feelings associated with it because the whole of human identity is rooted in it—along with their consciousness in the self wired in the brain, noted by neuroscientist Antonio Damasio[4]—and the depths of the human condition is tied to it. If neuroscience can talk about feelings as integral to the human function, why doesn’t the theological academy discuss feelings as at the core of the human person?

A major part of the answer relates to our theological anthropology having redefined the person without the primacy of the qualitative and relational; but interrelated, the main reason involves the human condition, that is, our intentional, unintentional or inadvertent engagement in the reductionism composing the human condition—notably in the self-determination preoccupied in the secondary (“good for…a delight to…desired to”) and in the shaping of relationships (“unexposed and distant,” cf. Gen 2:25). Consciousness as a person necessarily involves feelings—even for the whole-ly God (e.g. Gen 6:6; Jn 11:33,35; Eph 4:30)—which Damasio defines as essential for the self but locates feelings only in brain function to integrate mind and body. Theological anthropology, however, can and needs to go deeper to inner out to get to the qualitative function of the heart (not separated from the brain) to distinguish the whole person. Yet, this is not about dualism, which goes ‘inner’ for an elusive soul but doesn’t integrate with the ‘out’ adequately to embody the whole person without fragmenting into parts (soul and body). And nonreductive physicality has ‘outer’ but not sufficiently ‘in’ to constitute the depth of the whole person in ontology and function; the whole person is pointed to but is either fragmentary or not distinguished.

The qualitative inner out signified by heart function is more definitive to distinguish the whole person, with its integral function irreplaceable for both the body to be whole and relationships together to be whole. Therefore, a turn away from the heart in any context or function has an unavoidable consequence of the human condition. The qualitative loss signified in the human condition emerges when we become distant from our heart, constrained or detached from feelings, thereby insensitive or hardened—just as Jesus exposed (Mk 7:6; Jn 5:42, cf. Mk 8:17) and Paul critiqued (Eph 4:17-19). This increasingly embeds human function in the outer in and reduces human ontology to ontological simulation.

This is evidenced in the function of “hypocrites” (hypokrites, Mk 7:6). In referential terms, hypokrites and hypokrisis (hypocrisy, cf. Lk 12:1) are limited to pretension or falsehood, in acts to dissemble or deceive. In relational terms, the dynamic involves the person presented to others (1^st unavoidable issue) that is only from outer in and thus different from the whole person distinguished from inner out (2^nd inescapable issue). Just as ancient Greek actors put on masks in a play, hypokrites engages in ontological simulation not necessarily with the intent to deceive but from what emerges by the nature of function from outer in. This dynamic evolved when the roles, titles and related markers we have are the basis for how we engage in relationships (3^rd unavoidable issue). In other words, whatever the person presents to others, it is not whole and consequently cannot be counted on to be who and what the person is, which is less about the outer-in issue of deception but most importantly the inner-out issue of righteousness (who, what and how the person truly is). This dynamic engages the pivotal issue involving the ontology of the person and its effect on relationships. The consequence of such function in relational terms is always a qualitative relational consequence that may not be apparent at the quantitative level from outer in. The outer-in simulation masking its qualitative relational consequence is exposed by Jesus notably in the relational act of worship: “This people honors me with their lips but their hearts are far from me; in vain do they worship me” (Mk 7:6, as in the 2^nd unavoidable issue). Paul also later confronted Peter and exposed his outer-in simulation (hypokrisis) by the role-playing he engaged in focused on secondary matters, which even influenced Barnabas and others to function outer in (Gal 2:11-14). All this magnifies the three unavoidable issues for all practice that must be accounted for ongoingly.

The qualitative function of the heart is irreplaceable and inseparable from the primacy of relationship together on God’s whole basis in wholeness. They are the irreducible and nonnegotiable outworking of the creation, for whose wholeness they are integral; therefore, their conjoint function are the keys for being whole that cannot be ignored or diminished. Anything less and any substitutes of the qualitative and the relational are reductions, which only signify the presence, influence and operation of the human condition. Any reductions or loss of the qualitative and relational render the person and persons together in relationship to fragmentary terms of human shaping; and this condition cannot be whole and consequently simply functions in the “not good to be apart” from God’s whole—in spite of any aggregate determination made in referential terms. The reduction to human terms and shaping from outer in—signifying the human person assuming autonomy apart from the primacy of relationship—prevail in human life and pervade even in the church and the academy, notably in legitimated efforts of self-determination and self-justification (functionally, not theologically). The interrelated issues of self-autonomy, self-determination and self-justification are critical to understand in terms of the sin of reductionism if we are to pay attention to the human condition in our self and midst.

The breadth and depth of reductionism by its nature is anything less and any substitutes of the whole. This irrefutably composes a wide spectrum of shapes and expressions, even among Jesus’ disciples and within gatherings of the church. All of these shapes and expressions of human ontology and function constitute the human condition—notably among Christians even by default—which prevail in the human context with the following consequence:

To define human being and determine being human, to construct human identity and shape human relationships, under the limits and constraints of the quantitative over the qualitative, the referential over the relational—all preoccupied with the secondary over the primary, even embedded in secondary information/details about the primary, under the long-standing assumption: “You will not surely be reduced.”

In reality, from the beginning to the present, discourse on theological anthropology is insufficient to be lived, and lived whole-ly; essentially, in interaction with the underpinning shift, it has shifted to be subject to the limits and constraints of the human context. Anything less and any substitutes in both our theological anthropology and its human ontology and function either ignore or reinforce the human condition in its depth, and therefore either sustain or even conform to its breadth. This state of our theological anthropology and its ontology and function of the person in the human context counters the whole person and relationships together in wholeness constituted in God’s context. Until this counter-relational work of reductionism is countered with nothing less and no substitutes, and thereby on God’s whole basis in wholeness, we and our theology and practice remain in the status quo embedded in the human context.

In order for our theology and practice to be on the Word’s whole basis in wholeness, we must “Follow me” integrally on the theological trajectory compatible with and on the relational path congruent with the incarnated Word’s. To be compatible with the Word’s trajectory is to be compatible with the Word’s relational context constituting his trajectory. To be congruent with the Word’s path is to be congruent with the Word’s relational process that is essential to enact the trajectory of his relational context. Like his trajectory and path, his relational context and process are inseparable and always integrated. Furthermore, the significance of his relational process is determined (or measured) by the integrity of the whole-ly Word’s relational context. Accordingly, for us to be congruent with the incarnated Word’s relational process, we also must (dei, by its nature and not opheilo, out of obligation) be compatible with the whole-ly Word’s relational context. This compatibility is unattainable wherever there is the primary shift of the human context. The critical issue directly involves the primary context subtly shaping the trajectory of our interpretations and the path of our understanding.

When Jesus wept over God’s people in Jerusalem, it was because their interpretation of peace didn’t understand what would “make for peace” (Lk 19:42). How did a people oppressed under Roman rule not understand what would bring them peace? Because their perceptual-interpretive mindset was focused on the common peace of the human context, at the loss of not understanding the uncommon peace Jesus gives (Jn 14:27). In other words, they had become contextualized by the common, which evidenced the subtle shift of their primary context determining their identity and function. In contrast, the book of Hebrews highlights the formative faith of God’s people, their trajectory and path that defined their identity and function as “strangers and foreigners, aliens, exiles on the earth” (Heb 11:13-16)—or those whose “citizenship is in God’s context” (as the Jewish Paul made definitive, Phil 3:20). Essentially, then, all of God’s people should be immigrants in their surrounding context, because they have disconnected (perhaps escaped as refugees) from their past and now belong to God’s kingdom family.

This illuminates the primary contextual issue that Christians neither discuss often enough nor address very deeply when they do. The epistemic and hermeneutic keys to interpreting God’s revelation in the Bible is understanding the source of God’s trajectory and path into the human context: That source is the whole-ly God’s context, which determines the integral relational context and process that distinguish the whole-ly Trinity’s presence and involvement in the common’s context of human life. God’s context is whole and uncommon (holy) and the Trinity’s presence and involvement incarnate the experiential truth and relational reality of the whole and uncommon. Understanding our whole-ly God’s whole-ly context is essential and thus fundamental for constituting our identity and function, and is the indispensable key for integrating our theology and practice.

The most likely definition Christians have of holy is typically moral purity and ethical perfection. This definition is necessary for the whole-ly God but not sufficient. Nor is it adequate to distinguish God’s whole-ly context, presence and involvement. Perhaps this is why the primary contextual issue for Christians is not discussed often or addressed deeply. Along with being necessary, what is sufficient and adequate understanding for whole-ly?

Since God as Creator is simply beyond the universe and above all life—the horizon beyond human discovery—God cannot be limited, constrained or contained to the perceptions, interpretations and thinking of humans. The holy God (qadosh, qadash) is set apart from all that is common, and thus as the Uncommon both beyond and incompatible with the common. Yet, God always is and functions within the context and process of God’s sanctuary, “your holy living context… heaven” (Dt 26:15); apart from this integral context God does not exist (except perhaps in deism) and cannot be experienced, known, understood, and is not available for relational connection (as in Lev 26:11). God’s whole (contrary to reduced or fragmentary) and uncommon (in contrast to the common) context is God’s realm of connection, and God’s trajectory and path from this whole-ly context extended this realm to the human context for persons to connect with nothing less and no substitutes but the whole-ly Trinity. This relational outcome, however, is only possible as a real reality (in conflict with virtual) when the relational context and process of God’s presence and involvement are constituted ongoingly as whole-ly (as in Isa 5:16; 29:23; Eze 36:23). Anything less and any substitutes of this Whole-ly Way are merely epistemological illusions and ontological simulations of whole-ly God, of God’s realm of connection, and of the relational outcome of God’s presence and involvement. This is the epistemic clarification and hermeneutic correction that much Christian theology and practice require today.

Therefore, given God’s horizon, the Bible cannot be interpreted and understood whole-ly while disconnected from the Trinity’s whole-ly relational context and process. Whatever is assumed to be gained from the Bible apart from the whole-ly relational context and process does not have the whole basis of God’s relational terms; nor does it have the uncommon relational outcome of the words from God’s relational purpose for communicating with us (illuminated in Isa 55:11; Jn 14:16-18; 16:13-15; 17:25-26; 1 Cor 2:9-12; 2 Cor 3:15-18; Eph 2:19-22). How has this prevailing assumption composed our theology and practice, and what has it done to our identity and function as persons and as the church? Along with hermeneutical and epistemological issues, there are ontological and relational issues deeply involved ongoingly in the composition of our theology and practice and the formation of Christian identity in a changing world.

Ancient Israel gives us a preview of what has evolved. When Israel was chosen on the whole basis of God’s relational terms to be God’s uncommon family in the covenant relationship of love (Dt 7:7-9), they had difficulty being distinguished beyond the common and maintaining their whole identity in the limits of the world. The fragmentary human context would shape who they were at the expense of whose they were. They increasingly wanted to be a nation-state “such as all the other nations” rather than be uncommon—which is perceived as ‘different thus less’ in a comparative process—“so that we also may be like other nations” (1 Sam 8:5,20, NIV). Except for white U.S. evangelicals, we may not be interested in becoming God’s nation-state, but this has not prevented our surrounding context from shaping the identity of who we are at the loss of whose we are.

Like identity politics in the U.S., Christian identity in the global church has had difficulty finding common ground—notably when Western Christians define it. Christian diversity prevails and rules in the global church, because what will unite us is not common ground but only uncommon ground—the whole-ly ground of the whole-ly way of the whole-ly God. Until Christian identity and function are whole-ly, the change of their transformation from the common will not unfold but just keep evolving in their variations of reductionism.

For Israel, God’s sanctuary was more localized than today (Ps 63:2; 68:24-25,35; 78:60,69). So, God’s people had more quantified details of what God’s dwelling should look like. Rather than understanding God’s instructions about his dwelling as the whole basis of relational terms for covenant relationship together in wholeness, these quantitative details often became the primary focus of their identity and function, which relegated God to a secondary place in the sanctuary. That is, God’s presence and involvement were quantified to a localized place that constricted God’s ontology and constrained God’s function to the limits of human terms. And while we may not restrict God’s presence and involvement with such quantifiers, this has not kept us from relegating God’s presence and involvement to a secondary place subordinate to other assumed primary details preoccupying us, whereby God’s whole-ly terms for relationship together are subtly replaced by our common terms. This is most evident in Christians ignoring the experiential truth of the curtain having been torn down in God’s whole-ly dwelling in order for the relational reality of intimately vulnerable face-to-face relational involvement together (as illuminated in Heb 10:19-22, cf. Eph 2:18; 3:12). The primacy of this experiential truth and relational reality has been elusive, buried or lost in our theology and practice, which then exposes how they are composed as if still in front of the curtain and thus relationally disconnected with the veil still covering our person (as Paul illuminated in 2 Cor 3:14-18).

The current condition in theology and practice evolved from early Judaism’s theology and practice, and thus their condition cannot be dismissed as the past (old) irrelevant for the present (new). Without listening to God’s relational terms to be whole (tamiym, not about being blameless, Gen 17:1) for the covenant in the primacy of relationship together and without paying attention to reductionism influencing their theology and practice, they composed traditions that reduced their theology and practice to the ontology of persons and the function of relationships defined and determined from outer in, based on fragmentary parts unconnected in relational distance (as in Isa 29:13). This history of their theology and practice unfolded further in Second Temple Judaism (after the exile) distinctly into Jesus’ time—history we need to listen to carefully because it has significance for examining our own theology and practice, notably our worship (Mk 7:1-9, NIV). Pay close attention to the unconnected parts composed by tradition:

“lips” moving apart from “hearts”; “hearts” in relational distance “far from me”; the “worship me” relationship reduced to referential “teachings…rules taught by humans”; thereby substituting “the whole relational terms of God” with “the traditions composed by humans.”

And, therefore, “You have a subtle way of reducing the primacy of God’s relational terms for relationship together in order to keep your traditions primary.”

What Jesus confronted in religious traditions was reductionism, exposing its subtle shaping of theology and practice that reduced God’s whole relational terms to the fragmentary parts of their terms having renegotiated covenant relationship together (cf. aphiemi in v.8 with Rev 2:4). Moreover, their traditions evolved into their culture.

The primacy of relationship together and relational connection on the whole basis in wholeness were subtly subordinated or simply overlooked, replacing common human terms for the relational purpose and outcome of God’s whole-ly terms; God’s whole and uncommon Way (“the Holy Way” in Isa 35:8-9) was conflated with their common priorities, concerns, and practices, therefore, rendering God’s whole-ly dwelling and way common-ized.

This common-ization is even more distinct today. Few Christians understand or think about God’s whole-ly dwelling as such, even though it is distinguished as the church (Eph 2:21-22), because it has lost its primary significance as whole and uncommon to the quantified fragmentary details of everyday modern life. Lost, however, not simply in the localized context of the past but in the reductionism of God’s whole-ly relational context and process by our contextual substitutes. Contextualized Christians thus are urgently faced with the critical cultural shift to counter this pervading primary shift of the context underlying the trajectory of their interpretations and the path of their understanding. Craig Bartholomew and Heath Thomas point to a cultural hermeneutic as an indispensable part of theological interpretation: “Rigorous cultural analysis is vital so that, like the Old Testament prophets, we work to relate God’s Word to this time and this place.”[5] The time for this is now and the place is in our own context.

Both religious and cultural traditions have shaped the global church, and we cannot continue to assume that they are simply ‘what’s good for the church’. Listening to the Word is how we need to pay attention to the traditions in our theology and practice for any influence from reductionism, notably working subtly in our surrounding contexts that we must not ignore—or be subject to the above relational consequences. We should not, must not, cannot just assume that in the traditions explicitly or implicitly composing our theology and practice “you are not being reduced or fragmented”—the subtle assumption we are ongoingly subjected to.

Because of the pervasive influence of reductionism in our theology and practice, the line between the uncommon and the common has not been clearly delineated in order to unmistakably distinguish our identity and function from the common. More often than not, we easily live daily by contextual default, that is, by the context of the common. What ongoingly counters contextual default is for Christians to take up the primary citizenship of their identity and function (made definitive by Paul, Eph 2:19-22). Peter, who was transformed in the trajectory of his interpretations and the path of his understanding, unequivocally also made definitive that “you are a chosen race… a holy nation, God’s own people,” and thereby appealed to them “as aliens and exiles in the human context” (1 Pet 2:9,11). Paroikos and parepidemos are sojourners who live in a surrounding context without settling down in that context and thus without being defined or determined by what’s common for that context (as noted in Heb 11:13). Accordingly, sojourners live by their faith, that is, by their relational involvement in reciprocal relationship together with the whole-ly Word—the tamiym of Abraham’s faith (Gen 17:1) and the discipleship of “Follow me.” Since Peter was transformed from his past and changed to the new distinguished by God’s whole-ly Way, he made it essential: “Do not be conformed to the common…. Instead, as he who called you is whole-ly, be whole-ly yourselves in all your ontology and function” (1 Pet 1:14-15, cf. Rom 12:1-2).

The uncommon is incompatible with the common, thus those uncommon are not assimilated in it yet also not isolated from it (cf. Jn 17:15-16). Sojourning in reciprocal relationship together with the whole-ly Word is not optional for Christians—and sojourning certainly is not an end in itself of what Christians are obligated to do—but essential for distinguishing their whole-ly identity and function from the common. Whenever, we stop sojourning in the primacy of relationship, we relinquish our citizenship, disconnect from God’s realm of connection, and settle down in the common’s context, whereby we are no longer distinguished in our whole-ly identity and function. That is the unavoidable reality evolving in the primary shift to the common’s context for our identity and function, and thus for our theology and practice, and our education and learning.

The Trinity is whole-ly, whose presence and involvement only dwell (even within us, Eph 2:21-22) in the whole-ly relational context and process. The only way we can know and understand the Trinity is by the trajectory of our interpretations and the path of our understanding integrally being vulnerably (from inner out) involved in the Trinity’s whole-ly realm of connection—integrated with nothing less and no substitutes. Reductionism and its counter-relational workings seek by subtle and seductive ways to common-ize the Whole-ly Way, in order that we will be on a different trajectory and path than the Trinity, so that any theological knowledge and understanding we think we have will only be virtual—“your eyes will be opened…like God, knowing….”

Timothy George makes this observation about seminaries: “Genuine theological education should aim for transformation, not the mere transfer of cognitive data from one mind to another. We can be satisfied with neither rigid intellectualism on the one hand nor unreflective sentimentalism on the other. Our aim ought to be rather head and heart together, puritanism and pietism, both together at their best. As Thomas Aquinas, echoing Augustine, put it, ‘Theology is taught by God, teaches God, and takes us to God.’” With this goal at the core for the academy, George forecasts its future: “Theological education over the next decades of the twenty-first century will need to be increasingly personal, incarnational, global, and gospel centered.”[6]

Yet, this goal will not bring significant difference from the past unless (1) it counters the underpinning shift of human interpretation and its challenging shift to referential language, and (2) returns to the relational language taught by God (not others speaking for God), teaching the words from God (not about the words of God), and takes us to God for the relational connection to know and understand the whole-ly God. Furthermore, the academy’s future will not experience the redemptive change of the old dying so the new can rise until (1) it confronts sin as reductionism in its midst and thus in its theology and practice, and (2) transforms its theological anthropology from reduced ontology and function to whole ontology and function. Without addressing these critical underlying issues in all theology and practice, both past and present, the status quo keeps evolving. When theological education and learning have their determinant distinctly shifted from the common to the uncommon, then they will no longer simply keep recycling changes from the old but will indeed experience the new.

What else is primary for Christian education in general and theological education in particular than knowing and understanding God? Yet, this needs to be qualified, because our theological learning and education are only significant when they are distinguished by the experiential truth (not merely propositional) and relational reality (not referential and virtual) of integrally knowing and understanding the whole-ly Trinity face to face (Jer 9:23-24; 2 Cor 4:6). Therefore, this is only a relational outcome that can unfold only from the whole-ly relational context and process of the Trinity’s realm of connection—which is the outcome unmatchable by human efforts parallel to virtual reality or artificial intelligence. Moreover, this whole-ly relational outcome is distinguished only in the uncommon and thus is incompatible with anything less and any substitutes—which then confronts (if not threatens) the composition of much theology and practice and their learning and education.

The Word incarnated all this for us to be incarnated. Besides the Sermon on the Mount, the Word’s manifesto for all his disciples and their discipleship, the incarnated Word enacted his most significant education and learning for his disciples when he vulnerably washed their feet (Jn 13:1-17). By subordinating his identity as “Teacher and Lord,” not letting that role and title determine his function and thus how he would be involved with them, and thereby making his whole person vulnerable to them face to face as never before—thus incarnating for them the three unavoidable issues and the three inescapable issues—whole-ly Jesus’ footwashing gave them the experiential truth and relational reality of knowing and understanding the whole-ly Trinity. This incarnates the knowing and understanding without any veil (or mask) that creates a relational barrier or relational distance. The presence of any veil (e.g. role and title) prevents this relational connection and thus precludes this relational outcome.

Peter noticeably experienced Jesus’ whole-ly person the most vulnerably presented at his footwashing; and Peter also learned that his own person had to be vulnerable from inner out—for example, without the veil of the Teacher’s student and the Lord’s servant, an uncommon shift—in order to make person-to-person relational connection with the incarnated Word. It was only in this whole-ly realm of connection that Peter (and any and all of Jesus’ followers) could know and understand the whole-ly Word as the experiential truth and relational reality—that is, beyond the propositional, doctrinal, and virtual basis for the theological education and learning they had up to that pivotal change, conversion, transformation. This is not anecdotal for our theology and practice but essential, and therefore irreplaceable with anything less and any substitutes. As discussed through the course of this study, the various shifts Peter had to undergo to make this connection for his theology and practice, and thus to experience the transformation in his ontology and function, are the very integral trajectory and path we too have to be integrated in for the same whole and uncommon relational outcome.

This integral trajectory and path are the irreducible truth and nonnegotiable reality facing us Person to person today: “Unless I wash you, you have no connection with me for your ontology and function to be whole-ly also, which then encompasses your theology and practice, your education and learning” (Jn 13:8). Yet, in his comments for a hopeful future in theological education, David Dockery seems to opt for a previous phase of the status quo: “We need institutions of theological education to recommit themselves to academic excellence in teaching and scholarship, in research and service,

as well as in personal discipleship and churchmanship. At the same time, we must lay hold of the best of the Christian theological tradition and carry it forward to engage the culture and the academy.”[7] Nothing really changes from the past to the future when we are on a different trajectory and path than what are incarnated by the Word—the whole-ly Word incarnated further, deeper and more significantly than the prominent evangelical Word of today.

Knowing and understanding the whole-ly Trinity are primary to God’s presence and involvement, and this primacy is the heart of theological education and learning. Therefore, what is essential for and thus in our education and learning is footwashing. Most important, footwashing education and learning incarnate the three ‘AREs’ of Jesus’ pedagogy.

Another major assumption made in theological education is an implied approach that learning takes place however the pedagogical process is engaged. There is a benign neglect of how teachers teach and students learn, operating on the assumption that teachers teach and students learn. The apparent thinking is that teaching and learning are achieved by the transmission of and exposure to a high level of content—and the higher the level the better the achievement.[8] This is a pedagogical model composed in referential terms by the wise and learned that Jesus exposed as incompatible to know and understand God (Lk 10:21-22), and that Paul identified as being embedded in an endless process of learning without knowing the truth (2 Tim 3:7), that is, the incarnated Truth as Subject-person who frees us from such referential constraints (Jn 8:31-32).

If the truth of theological education is the incarnated Truth (beyond a proposition) and the primary purpose of theological education is to know and understand God according to the Truth in relational language, then theological education can no longer adhere to the referentialization of the Word and depend on (even by default) a referential pedagogical model for its teaching and learning. The how of theological education is not optional on the agenda of the academy or church but integral for the irreducible and nonnegotiable relational outcome of knowing and understanding the whole-ly Trinity in compatible theology and congruent practice. This outcome may seem relatively routine in referential terms, but its reality as the relational outcome involves a vulnerable resolve in relational terms—which can be discomforting and threatening.

It was no mere event of transcendence when the Father communicated directly to Jesus’ followers: “Listen to my Son” (Mt 17:5). The Father’s relational imperative clearly illuminated the nature and identity of the Word entirely in relational language, and the whole-ly God’s relational terms set in motion the final phase of the relational epistemic process that distinguishes theological education in the Trinity’s whole-ly ontology and function. To be so distinguished, theological education must compatibly engage this relational epistemic process and be congruent with the Word’s improbable-uncommon (not probable-common) theological trajectory and vulnerable relational path for its pedagogical model of teaching and learning. For this reason, Jesus extends the Father’s relational imperative with two interrelated relational imperatives: “pay attention to how you listen” (Lk 8:18), and “pay attention to what you hear” (Mk 4:24) because “the pedagogical model you use will determine the teaching and learning you get.” Of course, our interpretive framework (phronema) and lens (phroneo)—which compose our perceptual-interpretive mindset—determine what we pay attention to and ignore, what we make primary and only secondary, thereby both determining our pedagogical approach and composing our teaching and learning. Certainly then our phronema and phroneo are critical to the pedagogical process, which, as Paul distinguished conclusively, makes the Spirit the key for theological education to be distinguished with the necessary phronema and phroneo in order to engage the pedagogical process in the primacy of wholeness and the qualitative (signified in zoe, not merely bios, Rom 8:5-6).

Jesus incarnated what to pay attention to for the how of theological education to be integrally (1) determined by the primary over the secondary, and thus (2) distinguished by the qualitative in whole relational terms and not the quantitative in fragmentary referential terms. When the core of theological education returns to the incarnated Word unfolded whole and uncommon (cf. Rev 2:4-5), it is face to Face with the whole-ly Word who, by the nature of the Word, must be taught in his relational language with cursive relational words by his relational process. Teaching in only his relational terms and not referential terms challenges the prevailing pedagogy in higher education and, more specifically, confronts how theological education is normally engaged (even with innovations under the assumption as the new normal). Therefore, theological education also needs to turn to Jesus for how to teach its innermost core—but turning to the uncommon Jesus who is not commonly perceived, listened to and connected with.

The most consequential non-issue issue in theological education involves its Christology, which routinely separates Jesus’ teachings from his whole person, leaving only de-personed and de-relationalized teachings. Contrary to prevailing views of discipleship, both in the ancient Mediterranean world and the modern world, Jesus did not merely embody teachings to follow, examples to emulate, even principles to embody, and subsequently for followers to teach. Accordingly, current theological students must be in contrast to rabbinic students in the past who followed their teachers in these ways, which also necessitates a qualitative relational difference in theological teachers.

The whole and uncommon incarnated by Jesus were clearly distinguished first in how he taught and then in what he taught. Jesus’ approach to teaching the whole-ly was not about revealing (apokalypto) key knowledge and critical information in referential terms, because the relational content (qualifying word-content) distinguishing God’s whole basis in wholeness involved only the whole person in relationship. What this involved for Jesus is vital for us to understand both to more deeply experience his incarnated whole and to further extend God’s whole basis to others within the church and in the world, the antecedent of which emerges from the quality of theological education and not its quantity. Jesus’ pedagogical approach to teaching and learning, which was integrated into the relational progression of discipleship in his theological trajectory and relational path, not only needs to inform and reform theological education in the academy and all levels of Christian education in the church, but also to transform them. This is essential for the status quo not to be recycled or to evolve with further adaptations.

When Jesus told the Father that he disclosed him to the disciples (Jn 17:6), he used phaneroo, which refers to those to whom the revelation is made, and not apokalypto, which refers only to the object revealed. This is not an artificial distinction to make but a critical one to distinguish God’s revelation as Subject engaged in relationship in contrast to only the Object to be observed. Phaneroo signifies the necessary context and process of his disclosure of the whole-ly God and God’s whole basis in wholeness, whose relational content would not be sufficient to understand merely as apokalypto of the Object observed in referential terms. How did Jesus constitute this key context and process to fully disclose this uncommon wholeness?

John’s Gospel provides the initial overview of Jesus’ pedagogy, which is the functionally integral framework for the qualitative significance of his disclosures. In the narrative of a wedding at Cana attended by Jesus and his disciples, Jesus used this situation to teach his disciples about himself (Jn 2:1-11). This initially evidenced the three dynamic dimensions basic to his approach to pedagogy.

As a guest, Jesus participated in the sociocultural context of the wedding (an event lasting days). In response to his mother’s request, Jesus appeared reluctant yet involved himself even further than as guest. In what seems like an uneventful account of Jesus’ first miracle unrelated to his function and purpose, John’s Gospel also provides us with the bigger picture illuminated in his introduction (Jn 1:14). John’s is the only Gospel to record this interaction, and the evangelist uses it to establish a pattern incarnated for Jesus’ ministry. The miracle was ostensibly about the wine but its significance was to teach his disciples. Both how and what he taught are vital for the wholeness of theological education.

When Jesus responded to his mother and got further involved, he made the whole of his person accessible to his disciples. Jesus was not just approachable but vulnerably accessible. This involved more than the quantitative notions of accessible language or words in teaching, or of making accessible one’s resources. This deeply involved making directly accessible the whole of his person from inner out and thus the qualitative significance of who, what and how he was. What unfolded from his person was his vulnerable resolve in relational terms. In this social context Jesus did not merely reveal (apokalypto) his resources, but most important, he vulnerably disclosed (phaneroo) his functional glory to his disciples, not a mere theological glory lacking functional significance (Jn 2:11, cf. 2 Cor 4:6). The first aspect of his glory that Jesus made accessible to them was God’s being, the innermost of God signified by the primacy of the heart. It was Jesus’ heart, composing his whole person, whom he made accessible to them. The whole person, composed by the function of the heart, distinguishes clearly the depth level of significance necessary to be accessible in Jesus’ pedagogy. Anything less and any substitutes are inadequate for this accessible-level to teach the whole further and deeper than referential terms that distinctly common-izes what is uncommon. A turn from the heart is consequential for the qualitative engagement needed to be accessible. It is incongruent to be helping others understand wholeness while one is not functioning to be whole in the process. Therefore, Accessible (A) is the first dynamic dimension in Jesus’ pedagogy necessary by its nature to be whole-ly in order to teach the whole-ly.

Phaneroo illuminates the irreplaceable context and process for making his whole person accessible. The miracle, self-disclosure, and being accessible, all are not ends in themselves but in Jesus’ purpose and function (even in this apparent secondary situation) are always and only for relationship. More specifically then, phaneroo distinguishes the integral relational context and process involved in his teaching. When Jesus disclosed his glory, he did not end with making accessible God’s being, the heart of God. The second aspect of his glory involved God’s nature, God’s intimate relational nature, witnessed initially between the Trinitarian persons during his baptism and later at the transfiguration. In this teaching moment, Jesus disclosed his whole person to his disciples for relationship together, thereby disclosing the intimate relational nature of God—that is, his functional glory, in his heart and relational nature, communicating in the innermost to make relational connection with their human ontology as whole persons created in the image of the heart of God for relationships together in likeness of the relational nature of the Trinity (as in Jn 1:14). This also provides further understanding of the relational context and process of God’s thematic relational response to the human condition and what is involved in that connection, which integrally composes the innermost core of theological education.

In this seemingly insignificant social context, Jesus qualitatively engaged and relationally involved his whole person with his disciples in the most significant human function: the primacy of reciprocal relationship together in wholeness. As he made his whole person accessible in this relational context and process, his disciples responded back to his glory by relationally “putting their trust in him” (2:11). Their response was not merely to a miracle, or placing their belief in his teaching, example or resources—in other words, a mere response to the Object observed. The context of his teaching was relational in the process of making accessible his person to their person, thus deeply connecting with the heart of their person and evoking a compatible relational response to be whole in reciprocal relationship together Subject to subject, Face to face, heart to heart. This relational process also illuminates the intrusive relational path of Jesus’ ‘relationship together involving the whole person’, which anticipates his improbable theological trajectory to remove the veil for intimate relationship with the whole-ly God. If his teaching content were only cognitive, this qualitative relational connection would not have been made. Anything less and any substitute from Jesus would not have composed the relational context and process necessary to qualitatively engage and relationally involve his whole person for relationship together to be whole, consequently not fulfilling God’s thematic action in relational response to the human relational condition—nor fulfilling God’s definitive blessing of bringing new relationship (siym) together in wholeness (shalom, Num 6:24-26). Therefore, Relational (R) is the second dynamic dimension in Jesus’ pedagogy necessary by its uncommon nature to live whole in relationships in order to teach the whole, only God’s relational whole.

When Jesus turned water into wine in this secondary social situation, he did not diminish the significance of his miracle or his glory. His disclosure was made not merely to impart knowledge and information about him for the disciples to assimilate. Who he presented and what he communicated are major issues. His disclosure was made in this experiential situation (albeit secondary) for his disciples to experience him living whole-ly in this and any life context, not in social isolation or a conceptual vacuum that a theology divided from function signifies. For Jesus, for example, merely giving a lecture/sermon would not constitute teaching—nor would listening to such constitute learning. That is to say, his teaching was experiential for their whole person (signified by heart function) to experience in relationship. For this experience to be a reality in relationship, the whole person must be vulnerably involved. This involved the third unavoidable issue of the depth level he engaged in relationships. When Jesus made his heart accessible to be relational with his disciples, he also disclosed the third aspect of his glory involving God’s presence, God’s vulnerable presence. In the strategic shift of God’s thematic relational action, the whole-ly Jesus incarnated God’s vulnerable presence for intimate involvement in relationship together, therefore disclosing God’s glory for his followers to experience and relationally respond back to “put their trust in him”—not merely a belief for the Rule of Faith but the relational involvement of the whole person. The incarnated Truth is experiential truth vulnerably present and involved for the experiential reality of this relationship together. If this is not the qualitative relational significance of the gospel at the heart of theological education, its core is not in the innermost.

Human experience is variable and relative. For experience to be whole, however, it needs to involve whole persons accessible to each other in relationship by vulnerable involvement together, which in the human context is uncommon (as social media today demonstrates). For this relational dynamic to be a functional reality, it must be the relational outcome of Jesus’ theological trajectory that removed the veil in relationship together (as in Eph 2:14-18), and of the relational path of his footwashing. This was Jesus’ purpose in his teaching and his pedagogical approach, which also was intrusive with ‘relationship together involving the whole person’. This was who, what, and how Jesus was ongoingly in his glory: who, as his whole person signified by the qualitative function of his heart; what, only by his intimate relational nature; and thus how, with vulnerable involvement only for relationship together to be God’s uncommon whole. The reality of relationally knowing (not referential knowledge about) the whole-ly God and relationally participating in God’s uncommon whole only emerges as experiential truth. Jesus’ teaching remains incomplete, and our learning is also not complete, unless it is experiential beyond the virtual. Therefore, to complete the three-dimensional approach, Experiential (E) is the third dynamic dimension in Jesus’ pedagogy necessary by its nature to integrate the other two dimensions of Accessible and Relational for the qualitative depth of the uncommon whole in order to teach the experiential truth of the whole for its experiential reality in new relationship together in wholeness.

The three AREs of Jesus’ pedagogy incarnate the definitive three-dimensional paradigm to be whole and to live whole in order to teach the experiential truth (not merely a propositional truth) of the uncommon whole. That is, incarnating this three-dimensional paradigm involves vulnerably teaching the whole as God’s relational whole on God’s qualitative relational terms, just as Jesus vulnerably incarnated, relationally disclosed and intimately involved his whole person with other persons. From this overview and with his vulnerable resolve, Jesus ongoingly demonstrated his three-dimensional pedagogical approach. His most notable teaching involvement unfolded in the last table fellowship he had with his disciples (Jn 13:1-17).

As the Master Teacher (13:13-14), Jesus took his pedagogical approach to a whole new level. His footwashing (as noted above) is commonly narrowed down to serving, thus fragmenting Jesus’ whole person to a part (in this case a secondary act) that is perceived with the mindset of a theological anthropology in reduced ontology and function. This is the phronema and phroneo Peter had in this key interaction, which contrasted and conflicted with the pedagogical approach Jesus relationally incarnated—that is, who vulnerably intruded on traditional and conventional pedagogy. Beyond the norm and what would be considered reasonable, Jesus made his whole person vulnerably accessible to them without the veil of his title and role in order to reach the depths of agape involvement (“the full extent of his love”) for the relational connection necessary for them to experience the intimate reality of relationship together in wholeness. Since Peter defined his person from outer in focused on secondary matter, he defined Jesus’ person by imposing the veil of the title and function of Master Teacher. Consequently, reduced ontology and function prevented Peter from learning experientially the primacy of whole relationship together incarnated by his Master Teacher’s vulnerable relational path in whole ontology and function. And Peter’s fragmentation should not be ignored in theological education since the limits in his theology and practice were consequential for the fragmentary formation of the early church (Acts 10:14-15,34; Gal 2:11-14). Nor should it be ignored by the educators and students occupying theological education if they want to progress in what’s primary.

Jesus’ pedagogy conflicted with the prevailing teaching practices in the ancient Mediterranean world; it was by its nature counter-cultural. Accordingly, his pedagogy conflicts with any reductionist teaching approaches, notably in the modern Western world with its primary focus on referential knowledge and rationalized understanding through the narrowed-down quantitative lens from reductionism (predating the Enlightenment)—further exposing a theological anthropology of reduced ontology and function. The learning process of Jesus’ pedagogy necessarily involves whole knowledge and understanding (synesis), which engages the primacy of the qualitative and the relational for the outcome of whole ontology and function, and thereby requires the critical cultural shift. Therefore, Jesus’ teaching of whole-ly God’s uncommon whole involves redemptive change and transformation to the new—not only for the whole person to experience as an individual but most importantly to experience in relationship together to be the whole-ly Trinity’s family. God’s relational whole on only God’s qualitative relational terms is this new creation family ‘already’—the new wine communion with no veil, without relational distance or barriers—relationally progressing to its ultimate relational communion together ‘not yet’, which Jesus made imperative to be taught after he discussed a series of parables about the kingdom of God and the last things (Mt 13:52). Anything less and any substitutes of this new as whole-ly constrain the flow of the new wine and reduce the planting, cultivating, growth and taste of the new wine in its full qualitative relational significance, whereby the status quo is maintained (Lk 5:36-39).

John’s Gospel gives us this whole picture from the beginning, in which the incarnated Word ongoingly functioned in his theological trajectory yet remaining vulnerably involved in his relational path for intimate relationship together. The whole-ly Word’s teaching only had significance in this definitive relational progression for this relational outcome ‘already’ and relational conclusion ‘not yet’. And this is how any teaching of the whole-ly Trinity’s family needs to be theologically and functionally contextualized (counter to common-ized)—and all the “trees” of life put into the “forest” of God’s thematic relational action for the eschatological big picture and the ultimate relational communion together, just as Paul composed in his theological forest and systemic framework. For Jesus, and Jesus into Paul, the only incarnating of theology that has qualitative relational significance is nothing less and no substitutes for the uncommon whole. To incarnate God’s whole basis in wholeness, therefore, any theological enterprise by necessity functions in the complete fullness (pleroma) of God’s improbable theological trajectory and intrusive relational path (Col 1:19-20; Eph 1:22-23); and this trajectory and path involve irreplaceably the primacy of the qualitative and relational needed to be the Trinity’s new family together in wholeness with no veil—the fulfillment of God’s definitive blessing that incarnates siym for shalom (Num 6:26).

Both Jesus and Paul intrude on theological education today to challenge integrally what composes its core and how it teaches this core.[9] To teach God’s relational whole integrally constituted by uncommon wholeness and composed in the relational language, this engagement must involve the vulnerable resolve of the three AREs of Jesus’ pedagogy to be compatible with the Trinitarian relational context of family and to be congruent with the Trinitarian relational process of family love that incarnate the new creation family. At the heart of this whole-ly relational context and process is ‘reciprocal relationship together involving the whole of persons’, and this clearly involves both teachers and students being accountable for our whole ontology and function with the veil removed. The new wine is composed by and is contained in only this whole ontology and function, whereby to counter the reduced ontology and function in our theology and practice as well as the status quo in our education and learning.

Yes indeed, what is essential for and thus in our education and learning is footwashing. Footwashing education and learning unmistakably distinguish for us and in us the uncommon from the common, the whole from the reduced or fragmentary, the primary from the secondary. Moreover, footwashing holds both those who educate and those who learn accountable for each of the former, even if any of the latter needs to be confronted—as Peter would testify. In the distinctly whole-ly relational context and process of footwashing, those involved integrally incarnate the whole of who, what and how they are—with nothing less and no substitutes, just as the whole-ly Word incarnated.

So, here we are with the Bible 2000 years after the Word incarnated the trajectory and path of God’s presence and involvement with us. How do you assess the trajectory of your interpretations and the path of your understanding? What connections are made in your theology and practice? Just as Linus asked Charlie Brown in their theological conversation, “How can you be so sure about your interpretations and understanding?”

While the human context is at the juncture of entering a 5G revolution—the fifth generation of fiber optics in wireless telecommunication technology that is 100 times faster than existing 4G and allows for billions of simultaneous connections—we have not advanced very far (if at all) in connecting with the Word on his trajectory and path. This leaves unanswered and unresolved the following, among critical issues:

This makes evident that even after 2000 years, the trajectory of our interpretations and the path of our understanding is at a crossroads—that is, not a juncture of a revolution in secondary connections, but the crossroads between conforming to the secondary and transforming in the primary connection. Our trajectory and path will either be common-ized by the secondary in our theology and practice, or will be integrated integrally in the Whole-ly Way for the primary. Which direction our trajectory and path takes is solely our decision; yet it should be clearly understood that not making a conscious choice then by default directs us in the former—conforming, even with a hybrid variation, at the expense of transforming to incarnated whole and uncommon interpretations and understanding for our theology and practice to be whole-ly.

To be incarnated in the Whole-ly Way, our interpretations must by the nature of the Way incorporate integrally each and all the pairs of the following:

The communication of God’s revelation and the Bible; epistemology and hermeneutics; God’s epistemic realm and the human epistemic realm; God’s context (horizon) and the human context (horizon); God’s language and human language; God’s perceptual-interpretive mindset and human perceptual-interpretive mindset—all from which the following unfold: God’s ontology and function and human ontology and function; God’s whole and reductionism; the uncommon and the common; the language of love and the language of sin; the primary and the secondary; God’s culture and human culture; the new and the old—all incorporated integrally for the relational outcome to be constituted and thus distinguished whole-ly in the qualitative image and relational likeness of the Whole-ly Trinity.

When the trajectory of Christians’, churches’ and the academy’s interpretations and the path of their understanding are integrated integrally in the Whole-ly Way, we can claim our transformation in primary relational connection with the whole-ly Word. Since the relational connection incarnated by “the whole-ly Way, Truth and Life” (Jn 14:6) is incompatible with the common, it only unfolds as we ongoingly are ‘set apart from the common’ (sanctified) to be incarnated in likeness. Then, therefore, after all these years, we will finally embark on our sojourn together as nothing less and no substitutes but the Whole-ly Trinity’s new creation family, whereby we can proclaim with qualitative relational significance the gospel on the whole basis in uncommon wholeness—just as the Word incarnated and prayed for us (Jn 17:20-26), and anointed us with the Holy One to abide intimately in us so that we will abide in the Whole-ly Trinity in the primacy of reciprocal relationship together (1 Jn 2:20,27).

The crossroads facing us today has never been more critical, and urgently calls for us to shift our direction. Incarnated by, in and with the Word, Paul and Peter illuminate our choice: “Do not conform to your surrounding context and its reductionism, rather be transformed to ‘Be whole-ly, because and just as I am whole-ly’” (Rom 12:2; 1 Pet 1:14-15).

When your resolve is to transform, our worship will also be integrated in the trajectory and path of this song:

[1] By Charles M. Schulz, Los Angeles Times, December 22, 2018.

[2] This vital discussion on theological anthropology is expanded in The Person in Complete Context: The Whole of Theological Anthropology Distinguished (TA Study, 2014).

[3] In their study of the brain John T. Cacioppo and William Patrick discuss this in loneliness: Human Nature and the Need for Social Connection (New York: W.W. Norton, 2008).

[4] Antonio Damasio, Self Comes to Mind: Constructing the Conscious Brain (New York: Pantheon Books, 2010).

[5] Craig G. Bartholomew and Heath A. Thomas, eds., A Manifesto for Theological Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016), 25. See also the challenge of cultural interpretation in Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Charles A. Anderson, and Michael J. Sleasman, eds., Everyday Theology: How to Read Cultural Texts and Interpret Trends (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007).

[6] Quoted from the Forward in David S. Dockery, ed., Theology, Church and Ministry: A Handbook for Theological Education ((Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2017), xii-xiii.

[7] David S. Dockery, ed., Theology, Church, and Ministry: A Handbook for Theological Education, 20.

[8] Michael S. Lawson challenges this mindset in The Professor’s Puzzle: Teaching in Christian Academics (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2015).

[9] For an in-depth study of the integration of Jesus and Paul, see Jesus into Paul: Embodying the Theology and Hermeneutic of the Whole Gospel (Integration Study, 2012). Online at http://www.4X12.org.

[10] By T. Dave Matsuo and Kary A. Kambara. Sheet music available online at http://www.4X12.org.