Table Of ContentThe Gospel of Transformation
Distinguishing the Discipleship and Ecclesiology
Integral to Salvation
T. Dave Matsuo
©2015 TDM All rights reserved
No part of this manuscript may be reprinted without permission from the author
Contact:
www.4X12.org
Contents
A Necessary Reintroduction to God’s Whole..................................................................1
Our Model of the Gospel 2
1. Reduced Model 2
2. Convergence Model 3
3. Whole Model 6
From Transformation to Reformation 11
From Wholeness to Reductionism 14
From Assumptions to Accountability 16
___________________________________________
SECTION I: GOD’S RELATIONAL CONTEXT AND PROCESS
TO TRANSFORMATION
Ch 1 The Theological Trajectory & Relational Path to Whole Theology and
Practice....................................................................................................................21
God’s Theological Trajectory Illuminated 22
God’s Relational Path Penetrates 26
Compatibility and Congruence for Whole Theology and Practice 33
Ch 2 The Unmistakable Face of God ............................................................................41
Introducing the Face of God 41
The Deeper Profile of God’s Face 47
Connecting with the Face of God 66
Ch 3 The Irreducible Subject of the Word...................................................................83
The Referentialization of the Word 87
Transforming to the Language of the Word 92
1. Cosmological 93
2. Relational 93
3. Whole 96
Implications in Theology and Practice 98
The Subject Intrudes 101
Strategic Shift 103
Tactical Shift 109
Functional Shift 119
Embracing Complete Christology 124
Unavoidable Implications 136
i
Ch 4 Discipleship Distinguished Only by Reciprocal Relationship..........................141
The Relationship of God 143
“Follow the Whole of Me” 147
Distinguished from Would-Be Disciples 148
Misguided Engagement: 149
Two Relational Errors Revising Discipleship: 150
Limited by the Surrounding Context: 152
Embracing the Whole Person 155
Refocused View of the Cross 156
Embracing the View from the Cross 159
The Irreplaceable Veil of the Cross 168
“Follow Me Whole-ly” 171
Ch 5 Called to Be, Live and Make Whole...................................................................177
Default Human Condition 178
Default Due to Fact 181
Continuing by Default 183
The Inner and Outer Scope of Reductionism 190
Identity Formation 193
Identity Crisis 196
Bifocal identity 201
The Process Integrally Composing the New Identity in His Call 204
The Beatitudes 1-4 206
Paul’s Composition of Our New Identity 213
The Beatitudes 5-8 219
The Integral Process Clarified 225
To Be and Live in God’s Image and Likeness 227
The Full Context from the Beginning 228
In the Qualitative Image of God 233
In the Relational Likeness of God 239
1. Within the Whole of God 240
2. With Other Persons in the Human Context 244
Distinguishing Our Person in Jesus’ Call 254
Ch 6 The Irreplaceable Replacement Person.............................................................259
The Person Missed or Misunderstood 260
The Whole of Paul Distinguished by the Spirit 266
What emerges from this reciprocal relational involvement
together with the Spirit? 270
What does Paul also make definitive as the outcome of reciprocal
relational involvement together with the Spirit? 272
What is the significance of distinguishing this relational
outcome ‘already’ by the Spirit? 275
The Irreplaceable Connection with God in Life Together 278
ii
SECTION II: THE GOSPEL’S RELATIONAL OUTCOME
OF WHOLENESS
Ch 7 The Kingdom of God’s Dwelling ........................................................................285
Understanding What Has Come 286
Transposed from Old to New 288
Further Clarification and Correction 295
Building the Church 300
Jesus’ Unanswered Post-Ascension Discourse for Ecclesiology 302
The Cross Reconstructed, God’s Dwelling Reconstituted 316
Ch 8 Ecclesiology Transformed to Be Whole .............................................................319
The Transformation of Paul's Theology and Practice 319
The Transformed Paul's Transformed Ecclesiology 322
Paul’s Development 323
The Roots of Ekklesia 324
His Ecclesiology of God's Whole Family 326
Its Functional Basis 327
Its Ontology and Function of the Church 332
Its Functional Significance 339
Its Functional Imperatives and Implications 345
The Depth of Our Accountability 353
Ch 9 The Church on Jesus’ Intrusive Relational Path..............................................355
Defining the Steps on Jesus’ Path 355
Culture and Its Seduction 359
Jesus Engaging Culture 360
Jesus’ Integral Approach 361
His Whole Practice 362
Ethics and Its Illusion 368
Getting on Jesus’ Ethical Path 368
His Definitive Terms for Ethics 372
Mt 5:21-48 374
Mt 6:1-34 380
Mt 7:1-27 387
Ethics Sanctified and Made Whole 392
Mission and Its Simulation 394
Intruding Vulnerably in the Surrounding Context 400
Ch 10 The Church Composed In and Composing the New Relational Order........405
The Deconstruction to Wholeness 406
Composed in the New Relational Order 410
Leadership Composed and Composing 412
Composed Only in Distinct Relational Terms 418
iii
The Church Reconstructed as Equalizer 424
The Question about Slaves 436
The Question about Women 437
Composed In and Composing Holy Communion 447
Ch 11 Maturing in Difference and Likeness...............................................................451
In Reverse Likeness 452
The Difference that Makes the Difference 454
Maturing in the Discipleship Distinguishing the Church 460
The Likeness that Makes the Difference 46
___________________________________________
Ch 12 Reclaiming the Gospel .......................................................................................477
Disclaiming the Lack of Clarity 478
Reclaiming the Whole Distinguished 481
Scripture Index (Primary Source)..................................................................................485
Bibliography (Secondary Source) ..................................................................................489
iv
A Necessary Reintroduction to God’s Whole
“I am bringing you good news…”
1
Luke 2:10
Whether good news is indeed good is relative to the person receiving the news.
The value of good news most often is determined by the recipient. In fact, what is good
news to some may be the opposite for others; obviously, who won the World Cup in 2014
did not bring news “of great joy for all the people” (as Lk 2:10 defined above).
Furthermore, what the outcome is that results from so-called good news raises other
matters which cannot be merely assumed to be good. Victories, for example, can be
celebrated in destructive ways, or can bring out hubris or lead to a false sense of security.
The value of good news and its resulting outcome likewise need application to the
gospel. It seems as if for many Christians the gospel has become more about ‘no bad
news’ than good. We need to examine the assumptions made about our gospel and that
we assume about its results both in our theology and practice. Accordingly, this study is
less about the gospel we proclaim to others and more about the gospel we claim for
ourselves, including its ongoing and unfolding results in our lives both individually and
corporately. This is a critical examination we must not ignore and cannot avoid, because
God holds us accountable for the whole gospel—accountable not only in our theology
and practice but also in our ontology and function both as a person and persons in
relationship together, most notably as the church. Therefore, all Christians, not only
church leaders and academics, need to account for the following:
• Has our gospel been indeed good, which by necessity includes its outcome—good
based not on our terms but by God’s?
• More importantly then, how congruent is our gospel and its unfolding outcome with
the inseparable theological trajectory and relational path of Jesus?
• And how relationally compatible is our gospel and its ongoing outcome with the
whole of Jesus (not mere parts of him) who irreducibly embodies the whole gospel
and distinguishes its outcome in whole theology and practice—nothing less and no
substitutes?
These questions do not point to options for us to consider whether to incorporate
in our understanding of the gospel. The whole gospel reveals the vulnerable presence and
intimate involvement of the whole of God, solely for the outcome of transformed
relationship together in wholeness. Without any optional sense, these questions penetrate
1
Unless indicated differently, all Scripture is taken from the NRSV; any italics in Scripture throughout this
study signify emphasis or further rendering of terms.
1
to the heart of the gospel, “the gospel of peace as wholeness,” which Paul defined for the
church (Eph 6:15); and by the nature of this gospel the questions illuminate the whole of
God and God’s relational response of grace as the basis both constituting and
distinguishing the Christian faith beyond what prevails in much of our theology and
practice. Anything less and any substitutes are not good news and thus must be subject to
God’s epistemological clarification and hermeneutic correction for the transformation to
wholeness.
Our Model of the Gospel
Let’s address (and confront as needed) our assumptions about the gospel we claim
and practice, and then proclaim. Generally speaking, there are three models of the gospel
that, I suggest, will be helpful to examine our gospel and its outcome. Our perception of
the gospel and its functional significance in our lives is received on the basis of one of the
following: (1) a reduced (or narrowed-down) model, (2) a convergence model, or (3) a
whole model. Though each model may partially utilize another model in a secondary
way, its primary determination of the gospel and its outcome emerge from that model.
We need to understand the primary models we use and the assumptions made with that
model.
1. Reduced Model
A reduced model of the gospel involves reductionism since certain assumptions
(whether epistemic, philosophical, hermeneutical, theological or relational) are made that
narrow down (either intentionally or unintentionally) the whole of who Jesus can be, was
or is. On this selective basis Jesus’ whole person is reduced to parts of him (e.g. what he
did or said) that thereby limit the gospel to those parts. In this fragmenting process, the
truth of the whole gospel is imperceptible because our Christology is incomplete and its
related soteriology becomes truncated. Our theology and practice lack clarity in this
fragmentary condition and can only assume to have the significance truly distinguishing
the gospel of Jesus Christ. The reality, however, even for the most well-intentioned
Christians is that the good news and its outcome remain elusive as long as our biased
assumptions reinforce this impasse to the whole of Jesus. The assumptions of a reduced
model need to be challenged in order to get beyond this impasse.
Consider the following. When Philip brought the good news to Nathaniel, his
response was noteworthy: “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” (Jn 1:46)
Nathaniel assumed a narrowed-down model of the gospel that reduced Jesus to a
prevailing stereotype disparaging Nazareth. Good had little value based on this common
knowledge of Jesus’ human context, the bias of which also influenced Nathaniel’s
perceptions of Jesus. The shape given to Jesus’ person (e.g. fragmented or incomplete),
and thus the gospel he embodied, is critical to understand in order to get beyond any
impasse to the full significance of the gospel and its outcome. While Nathaniel honestly
acknowledged his bias, he remained open to the epistemic challenge from Philip to
“Come and see” (i.e. expand his epistemic field) and thereby engaged the relational
epistemic process to the whole of Jesus (Jn 1:46-51).
2
The relational outcome of Nathaniel’s discipleship—that is, the discipleship based
only on the relational terms Jesus revealed in the whole gospel—would not have emerged
from a reduced model of the gospel. Likewise for us today, the significance of
discipleship distinguished by the gospel embodied by the whole of Jesus is not the
relational outcome that can emerge from anything less and any substitutes. We must
understand in our theology and practice: whatever we assume about the gospel shapes its
outcome in the discipleship we practice.
Nearly all of us start out with a reduced model of the gospel. Unfortunately, many
Christians remain limited to narrowed-down knowledge and understanding based on
epistemic, philosophical, hermeneutical, theological or relational assumptions; and,
unlike for Nathaniel, these assumptions do not allow the depth of the gospel and its
outcome to be distinguished in the full significance embodied by the whole of Jesus.
These limits continue in our theology and practice, even in the academy, since by design
a narrowed-down model operates as follows: (1) it is selective of the news it hears and
sees, (2) compresses the significance of that news to only those selective parts, and (3)
constrains the experience of the gospel’s whole effectiveness to only certain areas of life,
consequently reducing the relational outcome of the gospel’s ongoing results in those
who follow Jesus as his church. Within these limits the discipleship and ecclesiology of
the whole of Jesus cannot be distinguished, though their epistemological illusion and
ontological simulation may prevail in our theology and practice.
Epistemological illusions and ontological simulations evolve from reductionism
as the substitutes used to counter (by design or complicity) the whole of God and God’s
whole. These substitutes re-form the whole on the basis of fragmentary terms and thereby
re-present the whole by only fragmented parts as illusion and simulation of God’s
whole—working under the assumption that the whole is defined by the sum of its parts.
They are further understood by the following:
Epistemological illusion: overestimating what we know or think we know, and the
assumptions we make about that knowledge which preclude what should necessitate
further definition and deeper understanding.
Ontological simulation: the substitutes we engage, usually based on epistemological
illusion, that reduce wholeness in life to fragmentary practice while being (pre)occupied
by the secondary over the primary, thereby only simulating whole ontology and function.
2. Convergence Model
A convergence model of the gospel attempts to go further in its knowledge and
understanding. Whether it goes beyond the above limits depends on its assumptions and
what converges. Whereas in a reduced model the main determinant of the value and
nature of the gospel is human shaping (i.e. the recipient’s terms), a convergence model
opens this determination to the interaction between various sources, essentially human
reason and God’s revelation. The convergence of reason and revelation, however, is a
variable process that does not stipulate which is the primary determinant of the gospel
and its outcome. This model’s design merely precludes an either-or understanding,
therefore not only what converges but how they converge is critical.
3
Interpretation of the good news also involves the convergence of past and present,
the past context of the gospel and the present context both chronologically and
geographically. The contextualization of the gospel has become a major issue of
convergence for contemporary understanding. Just exactly how much further a
convergence model takes us in its knowledge and understanding than a reduced model
pivots on its assumptions, notably about the function of human reason and God’s
revelation.
Consider the following. When Jesus asked his disciples about the gospel and
“who do you say that I am?” Peter’s confession of faith was notable, at least for the
moment: “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God” (Mt 16:15-16). More
significant for the knowledge and understanding of the gospel was Jesus’ affirmation in
response: “Blessed are you for human reason has not revealed this to you, but my Father
in heaven” (v.17). Yet, Jesus’ affirmation of Peter was short-lived because Peter used a
convergence model for his understanding of the gospel. He correctly identified who
embodied the gospel based on God’s revelation; the revelations of God were the initial
basis for Peter’s discipleship (cf. Lk 5:1-11). The assumptions of his reason, however,
quickly emerged as the primary determinant for the gospel and its outcome. As Jesus
continued to unfold the good news of God’s relational response of grace to the human
condition—a response that would include the suffering of the cross—Peter reacted to
correct Jesus by his convergence model of the gospel: “Peter took him aside and began to
rebuke him, saying, ‘God forbid it, Lord! This must never happen to you’” (Mt 16:21-
22).
Based on Peter’s assumptions about what the good news of the Messiah would be
and how it would unfold, what Jesus revealed was incongruent and in conflict with
Peter’s gospel. Therefore, in Peter’s gospel Jesus could not go to the cross, and he
attempted to prevent Jesus from fulfilling the full significance of the gospel, that is, on
God’s terms. Can you imagine a gospel without the cross? Peter did, and Jesus exposed
the assumptions behind his thinking: “setting your mind not on divine things but on
human things” (16:23).
Equally important for us today, while we couldn’t eliminate the cross, can you
imagine a gospel with only the cross? That cross, in reality, is the extent of the gospel for
many Christians, perhaps not in theology but in practice. The results of such a gospel in
theology and/or practice become narrowed down to a truncated soteriology—that is,
limited to only what Jesus saves us from without the experiential truth and relational
reality of what he saves us to. Moreover, a gospel with only a cross perceives Jesus
mainly by his sacrifice, and defines both what he did and what we do as his followers
with only a servant model of sacrifice (even with sacrificial love). Such a gospel is overly
Christocentric, whereby his whole person is actually reduced and not magnified by
overemphasizing the above at the neglect of the whole of God (the Trinity) revealed by
Jesus for whole relationship together (cf. Jn 1:18; 17:6-8,26). Consequently, rather than
taking us beyond the limits of our knowledge and understanding, this imbalance of reason
(human shaping) over revelation in a convergence model increasingly shifts it to a
reduced model.
The imbalance of Peter’s assumptions over God’s revelation embodied by the
whole of Jesus emerged further to distort both his perception of the gospel and his
understanding of its unfolding results “of great joy for all the people.” Later at their
4
