The following is a letter I sent to Chris Wright in response to his address:

Dear Chris,

I recently listened to your address to Cape Town 2010 via the video on its website. Thank you for your important and needed focus on the church itself and church/mission leaders. As bold as your address was, however, I suggest that you did not go far enough and deep enough for a reformation that is truly redemptive change. For such individual and collective transformation, we need to challenge certain basic assumptions underlying our actual function (not necessarily our theology). We are challenged to prayerfully examine two assumptions in particular, with the Spirit.

The first assumption is our theological anthropology; specifically, we need to ongoingly challenge how we define the human person, and thus how we function. Our human construction of personhood is, universally, based on what we do (e.g., performance, achievements) and have (e.g., power, status, reputation, wealth, education, not to mention spiritual gifts). These define the person from the outer in, and thus in quantitative terms, such that the more the better—yet that more is defined always in a comparative process with others. How we define our person determines how we “do” relationships, both with God and each other (e.g., Mk 7:6). Idolatry must be understood more deeply as how we define ourselves, and that which determines our function. Idolatry also must be understood for its full relational implications: who and what defines us and determines how we function. Therefore, repentance from idolatry must go beyond the mere outer-in rejection of power, pride, popularity and success, to the underlying source of who defines the person—is it God, or from human construction? (cf. Mk 7:7-8). Redemptive change necessarily requires both dying to our terms for relationship with God, and being raised up as his new creation family ‘already’, the church. This means submitting to and being redefined by Jesus on his terms for all who follow him, which constitute the terms of grace.

God’s grace is only for intimate relationship with himself, by which we must function with “nothing less and no substitutes” of our whole person, notably our open and vulnerable hearts (cf. 2 Cor 12:7-9). God’s relational context and intimate relational process are notably embodied by Jesus in the incarnation. This is the only relationship that brings us wholeness (peace), and collectively constitutes us as God’s new creation family in likeness of the whole of God, the Trinity, as Jesus made definitive for our relationships together both to experience in the church and to witness to its relational reality in the world (Jn 17:20-23). Only when we function openly and vulnerably in relationship with God and each other are God’s terms of grace being submitted to. But to function on God’s terms of grace requires change from the inner out (i.e., metamorphoō in contrast to metaschematizō, outer-in change), the outcome of which is humility, integrity and simplicity—to define our person(s) and function as who we are and whose we are.

The second assumption is about how we approach Scripture. Chris, your address made the important call to Bible-based preaching. Here, however, we cannot assume that merely focusing on the biblical text—in study and preaching—involves us with Jesus on his terms, in his relational epistemology of the involvement of our whole person with him (e.g., Jn 14:9). Jesus never assumes this. Unless church leaders, theologians, and biblical scholars read Scripture in Jesus’ relational epistemic process, we will continue to disembody the Word so that Scripture becomes equated with, and reduced to, merely a source of information about God rather than the “words from God’s mouth” given only for relationship together (Lk 8:18; cf. Lk 10:21), to be a source for correct doctrine but without relational significance to either God or ourselves.

The Christian academy must therefore also take responsibility for the sad state of God’s church in the world because the academy reinforces the human construction of defining the human person and function based on what one does and has. Individual and institutional reputation, publishing record, name recognition, numbers, accreditation—all engage in forms of “peddling the word of God,” however unintentionally that may be. One can only conclude that transformation of God’s church must include transformation of the Christian academy and its preparation of church/missions leaders.

Chris, earlier this year you stated the need for “whole gospel,” but you focused primarily in quantitative terms. These quantitative terms should never take priority over God’s purposes for the qualitative involvement of his daughters and sons in intimate and equalized relationships together as his new creation family. Anything less and any substitutes has no significance to God, nor can constitute redemptive change for God’s church—that is, transformation, not reformation. The lack of this quality of involvement together was evident in planning of Cape Town 2010, primarily by Western Christians. The “radical return” to Jesus and Scripture indeed is more radical—and more exciting—than many church/missions/academy leaders and participants may want. Yet, can we settle for anything less? God holds us accountable for all he has shared of himself and his desires/purposes with us.

To extend this needed conversation and for in-depth study of these issues, please refer to the studies on our website, www.4X12.org, especially Sanctified Christology: A Theological & Functional Study of the Whole of Jesus and The Whole of Paul and the Whole in His Theology: Theological Interpretation in Relational Epistemic Process.

Again, my brother, I am indeed thankful for all that you did say in your bold address. In these days of celebrating Jesus’ whole person in the incarnation, may the Spirit continue to pursue your own heart for his purposes! My husband and I pray for you and the church around the world.

for wholeness in theology & practice,

Kary Kambara

DISCiple Ministries, www.4X12.org