The Body of Christ metaphor

Prompt to Claude:
Traditionally, the body of Christ metaphor in 1 Cor 12 has been understood as a metaphor for an organism, with an emphasis on unity. But Yung Suk Kim presents an alternative reading, which takes the body of Christ as a way of living, emphasizing Christ-like faith and living. Can you clarify this? I know he wrote a few books on Paul, especially Christ's Body in Corinth.

Certainly! Yung Suk Kim's alternative reading of the "body of Christ" metaphor in 1 Corinthians 12 represents a significant shift from traditional interpretations. Let's break down the traditional view and Kim's perspective:

Traditional Understanding:

1. Organism metaphor: The church is seen as a single, unified organism.
2. Emphasis on unity: Focus on how different members form one cohesive body.
3. Functional diversity: Different roles within the church are like different body parts.
4. Institutional focus: Often applied to church structure and organization.

Yung Suk Kim's Alternative Reading:

1. "Body of Christ as a way of living":
- Shifts focus from institutional structure to individual and collective behavior.
- Emphasizes the ethical and practical dimensions of Christian life.

2. Christ-like faith and living:
- Interprets the metaphor as a call to embody Christ's teachings and character.
- Focuses on how believers should live and act in the world.

3. Ethical implications:
- Stresses the importance of living out Christ's values in daily life.
- Encourages believers to manifest Christ's love, compassion, and justice in their actions.

4. Community emphasis:
- While still acknowledging community, it focuses on how individuals within the community should behave.
- Suggests that the "body of Christ" is realized through collective Christ-like action.

5. Transformative approach:
- Views the metaphor as a call for personal and social transformation.
- Encourages active engagement with and change of the world around them.

6. Contextual interpretation:
- Considers the historical and cultural context of Corinth and applies it to contemporary situations.
- Seeks to make the metaphor relevant to modern ethical challenges.

Key Differences:
1. Focus: Traditional view focuses on church structure; Kim's view focuses on ethical living.
2. Application: Traditional view is more internal to the church; Kim's view extends to how Christians interact with the broader world.
3. Emphasis: Traditional view emphasizes unity within diversity; Kim emphasizes embodying Christ's character and teachings.

In his book "Christ's Body in Corinth: The Politics of a Metaphor," Kim likely elaborates on how this interpretation relates to the specific context of the Corinthian church and its challenges, as well as how it can be applied to contemporary Christian ethics and community life.

This alternative reading encourages a more active, engaged, and transformative understanding of what it means to be part of the "body of Christ," moving beyond organizational structure to personal and collective ethical responsibility.

MIND

Prompt to Claude:
Daniel Siegel states in his book, MIND: "We live in a sea of information flow that happens within the body and between our bodies and the larger world of other people and our environment." Can you clarify this statement?

Certainly! This statement by Daniel Siegel encapsulates a key concept in his work on interpersonal neurobiology and the nature of mind. Let's break it down:

1. "Sea of information flow":
This metaphor suggests that we are constantly surrounded by and immersed in a vast, dynamic exchange of information. It's not static, but fluid and ever-changing, like a sea.

2. "Within the body":
This refers to internal processes such as:
- Neural signaling in the brain and nervous system
- Hormonal communications
- Immune system activities
- Interoception (sensing internal bodily states)

3. "Between our bodies and the larger world":
This points to the constant interaction between our physical selves and the external environment, including:
- Sensory input (sight, sound, touch, taste, smell)
- Social interactions and communications
- Environmental influences (temperature, air quality, etc.)

4. "Other people":
Emphasizes the importance of social connections and interpersonal relationships in shaping our experiences and mental states. This includes:
- Verbal and non-verbal communication
- Emotional resonance and attunement
- Social learning and cultural influences

5. "Our environment":
Refers to the broader context in which we exist, including:
- Physical surroundings (natural and built environments)
- Cultural and societal contexts
- Technological environments

Key implications of this statement:
1. Interconnectedness: We are not isolated entities but deeply connected to and influenced by our internal processes, other people, and our environment.

2. Continuous exchange: Information flow is constant and multidirectional, shaping our experiences moment by moment.

3. Embodied cognition: Our mental processes are not confined to the brain but involve the entire body and its interactions with the world.

4. Importance of context: Our experiences and mental states are profoundly influenced by the contexts in which we exist.

5. Dynamic nature of mind: The mind is not a fixed entity but a process that emerges from these complex interactions.

6. Holistic perspective: Understanding the mind requires considering multiple levels of analysis, from internal bodily processes to broader environmental factors.

This concept aligns with Siegel's broader view of the mind as an embodied and relational process, rather than simply an activity of the brain. It emphasizes the importance of considering the whole person in their full context when thinking about mental health, well-being, and personal development.

By framing our existence in terms of this "sea of information flow," Siegel encourages a more comprehensive and integrative approach to understanding human experience and consciousness.

Integration is healing

Prompt to Claude:
Daniel Siegel, in his book MIND, states that healing is integration: "Integration is more like a fruit salad than a Smoothie." Can you clarify this idea?

Daniel Siegel's metaphor of integration being "more like a fruit salad than a smoothie" is a powerful way to illustrate his concept of integration in mental health and well-being. Let's break down this idea:

1. The Fruit Salad Metaphor:
In a fruit salad, each piece of fruit maintains its unique characteristics, flavor, and texture while contributing to the overall dish. The fruits are mixed together but not blended into a homogeneous mixture.

2. The Smoothie Metaphor:
In contrast, a smoothie blends all ingredients into a uniform consistency where individual components lose their distinct qualities.

3. Integration According to Siegel:

Siegel uses this metaphor to explain that true integration in the mind (and in relationships) involves honoring and preserving individual differences while creating a harmonious whole. Here's what this means:

a) Maintaining Individuality: Each aspect of our mind (or each person in a relationship) retains its unique qualities and strengths.
b) Harmonious Connection: These distinct parts work together in a coordinated, flexible manner.
c) Avoiding Rigidity or Chaos: Integration prevents both the extreme of rigid separation (like fruits in separate bowls) and chaotic blending (like a smoothie).

4. Application to Healing:

When Siegel says "healing is integration," he means that mental health and well-being come from:

a) Acknowledging and accepting all parts of ourselves or our experiences.
b) Allowing these parts to interact and work together without losing their individual essence.
c) Creating a sense of wholeness that doesn't erase the uniqueness of its components.

5. Practical Implications:
- In therapy: It might mean acknowledging and working with different aspects of one's personality or past experiences, rather than trying to "smooth over" or eliminate challenging parts.
- In relationships: It could involve respecting individual differences while fostering connection and understanding.
- In personal growth: It might mean developing various skills or aspects of oneself without losing core identity.

6. Contrast with Other Approaches:

Some approaches to mental health might aim to "smooth out" difficulties or create uniformity (like a smoothie). Siegel argues that true healing comes from integration that respects diversity within unity.

This concept aligns with Siegel's broader work on interpersonal neurobiology, which emphasizes the importance of integration at various levels - within the brain, within the individual, and in relationships with others and the environment.

By using the fruit salad metaphor, Siegel provides a vivid and accessible way to understand the complex idea of integration in mental health and personal development.

Divergent thinking versus convergent thinking

Prompt to Claude:

I have encountered concepts of "divergent thinking or approach" versus "convergent thinking" in one of the books I read. The book is about neuroscience. The former is a more open-ended approach. The latter is a solution-driven approach. Can you clarify this?

Certainly! The concepts of divergent thinking and convergent thinking are indeed important in cognitive psychology and neuroscience. They represent different approaches to problem-solving and creative thinking. Let's break them down:

1. Divergent Thinking:
- This is an open-ended, exploratory approach to thinking.
- It involves generating multiple, diverse ideas or solutions to a problem.
- Characterized by creativity, spontaneity, and non-linear thought processes.
- Often associated with brainstorming and "thinking outside the box."
- Aims to explore many possible solutions rather than finding a single "correct" answer.

Examples of divergent thinking tasks:
- Listing all possible uses for a common object (e.g., a brick)
- Coming up with multiple storylines for a given scenario
- Brainstorming ideas for a new product

2. Convergent Thinking:
- This is a more focused, solution-driven approach to thinking.
- It involves narrowing down options to find the single best answer or solution.
- Characterized by logic, accuracy, and speed in solving well-defined problems.
- Often associated with standardized tests and situations where there's a clear "right" answer.
- Aims to arrive at a single, best solution to a problem.

Examples of convergent thinking tasks:
- Solving a math problem
- Choosing the correct answer in a multiple-choice test
- Deciding on the most efficient route to a destination

Key Differences:
1. Goal: Divergent thinking aims to generate multiple ideas, while convergent thinking aims to find the best single solution.

2. Process: Divergent thinking is expansive and exploratory, while convergent thinking is reductive and focused.

3. Application: Divergent thinking is often used in creative and innovative processes, while convergent thinking is used in logical problem-solving and decision-making.

4. Evaluation: In divergent thinking, all ideas are considered valuable; in convergent thinking, ideas are evaluated against specific criteria.

In practice, both types of thinking are valuable and often used in combination. For example, in a problem-solving process, one might start with divergent thinking to generate multiple possible solutions, then use convergent thinking to evaluate and select the best option.

Understanding these concepts is crucial in fields like education, innovation, and cognitive science, as it helps in developing more effective problem-solving strategies and fostering creativity.

Bottom-up processing and Top-down processing

Prompt to Claude AI:
I read the bottom-up approach, which is conduit-based, like sense information, and the other one is the top-down approach, which constructs things such as sense information (may be from brain function). The point is, we need both of these. What do you think? I actually read this idea from Daniel Siegel's book, called "Mind."

You're referring to an important concept in cognitive psychology and neuroscience that Daniel Siegel explores in his work. The bottom-up and top-down approaches are indeed crucial for understanding how our brains process information and create our experience of the world.

1. Bottom-up processing:
This is the more immediate, sensory-driven approach. It involves taking in raw sensory data from our environment and sending it "up" to higher cognitive processes. It's data-driven and works with the immediate sensory input.

2. Top-down processing:
This approach involves using prior knowledge, expectations, and cognitive schemas to interpret sensory information. It's concept-driven and influences how we perceive and interpret incoming data.

You're absolutely correct that both approaches are necessary for a complete understanding of how we perceive and interact with the world. Here's why:

1. Integration: Our brains constantly integrate bottom-up sensory information with top-down cognitive processes to create a coherent experience of reality.

2. Efficiency: Top-down processes help us quickly make sense of our environment based on past experiences, while bottom-up processes ensure we remain responsive to new or unexpected information.

3. Balance: Over-reliance on either approach can lead to issues. Too much bottom-up processing might overwhelm us with sensory details, while too much top-down processing could lead to rigid thinking or missing important new information.

4. Adaptability: The interplay between these approaches allows us to be both responsive to our immediate environment and guided by our accumulated knowledge and expectations.

5. Learning: New experiences (bottom-up) can modify our existing mental models (top-down), allowing for continuous learning and adaptation.

Daniel Siegel's work, particularly in "Mind: A Journey to the Heart of Being Human," emphasizes this interplay and its importance in understanding consciousness, perception, and mental health. His approach aligns with current neuroscientific understanding of how the brain functions as an integrated system.

This dual-processing model has significant implications for fields like education, therapy, and artificial intelligence, where understanding how we process information can lead to more effective learning strategies, therapeutic approaches, and AI systems that better mimic human cognition.

Anguish and Glory

 "Anguish and Glory: Diverse Portrayals of Jesus's Death in the Gospels"

Yung Suk Kim

The depiction of Jesus's death varies significantly across the canonical Gospels, offering diverse theological perspectives on its meaning and nature. A particularly striking contrast emerges when comparing the portrayal of Jesus's passion in the Gospels of Mark and John, while considering the nuances presented by Matthew and Luke.

In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus's approach to his impending suffering and death is characterized by profound anguish and a reluctant submission. His mission, as articulated in Mark 10:45, involves serving the lowly and marginalized, a path that inevitably leads to conflict. The Gethsemane narrative (Mark 14:32-42) powerfully illustrates this internal struggle, where Jesus prays for the "cup" of suffering to be removed, yet ultimately acquiesces to divine will, recognizing the absence of an alternative path. This Markan portrayal suggests that Jesus foresaw the rejection of his radical teachings and ministry by the established powers and populace, implying that his death became a necessary consequence of his unwavering commitment. Thus, the question of the necessity of Jesus's death in Mark presents a paradoxical answer: it is necessary given the unyielding nature of his mission, yet it would have been avoidable had his message been embraced. Consequently, Mark presents Jesus's death as a profoundly difficult and costly event, a perspective largely echoed in the Gospel of Matthew.

In stark contrast, the Gospel of John presents Jesus's death as an essential act of divine love and an occasion for glory, a moment Jesus willingly embraces as the culmination of his mission. The Johannine Jesus exhibits no discernible anguish or lamentation, unlike Mark's depiction; instead, he appears to accept his crucifixion as the fulfillment of his purpose. This divergence highlights two extreme theological interpretations of Jesus's passion: one of suffering and reluctant acceptance (Mark), and the other of triumphant fulfillment and divine purpose (John). The question of which portrayal aligns more closely with the "historical Jesus" remains a subject of scholarly debate, often suggesting that the truth may lie in a more nuanced synthesis. Notably, Luke's Gospel shares an affinity with John's in its depiction of Jesus's death. Luke portrays Jesus's death as a prophetic and willing sacrifice, devoid of significant anguish. Instead, the Lukan Jesus demonstrates composure and compassion, exemplified by his prayer, "Father, forgive them because they don't know what they do" (Luke 23:34).

Consequently, the synoptic Gospels of Mark and Matthew largely converge in their presentation of Jesus's death as a profoundly difficult and costly event, far from an ideal outcome. They characterize the crucifixion as a tragedy and an act of profound injustice. From this perspective, Jesus's demise was an inevitable consequence of his unwavering commitment to a mission that challenged established social and religious norms. His advocacy for the poor, the marginalized, and social outcasts directly contributed to his confrontation with authority, ultimately costing him his life. On the other hand, in Luke and John, the death of Jesus is depicted not as a tragic inevitability but as a purposeful event. While the Lukan Jesus faces death with remarkable serenity and absence of lament, the Johannine Jesus actively embraces it as the pinnacle of his earthly mission—a moment of ultimate glory and the supreme expression of divine love.

Ultimately, the striking textual divergences concerning Jesus's death across the Gospels compel further critical inquiry. These narratives invite theological reflection on profound questions: Is Jesus's death to be understood primarily as a necessary, triumphant act of divine love and glory, or as a tragic consequence of human injustice and a costly adherence to a radical mission? Reconciling these distinct portrayals, both within each Gospel's unique theological framework and through the lens of historical context, remains a central challenge and ongoing endeavor in New Testament scholarship.

The Body Politic vs. The Body of Christ

The Body Politic vs. The Body of Christ:

Re-reading Paul through Union rather than Homonoia

Yung Suk Kim

The distinction between "unity" and "union" is more than a semantic nuance; it signifies a fundamental difference in political, social, and theological paradigms. While often used interchangeably, "union" refers to the act of joining or the state of being joined – a connection of distinct entities, often external, structural, or contractual. "Unity," conversely, denotes the state of being one, functioning as a single entity, or existing in harmony – a quality of oneness, often internal, spiritual, or emotional. The critical difference lies between the state of being (unity) and the act of joining (union), and between their implications for hierarchy and individual agency within each.

To better understand this relationship, one can conceptualize "oneness" along a spectrum: 

Type A: Organic/Voluntary Unity: This signifies a genuine harmony arising spontaneously from shared values and mutual respect. It cannot be forced and respects individual differences while finding common ground. It embodies the ideal state of collective well-being.

Type B: Structural Union: This describes a pragmatic "contract" where distinct entities agree to work together. It implies a system (laws, agreements) that binds them, allowing for pluralism and maintaining individual identities within a shared framework.

Type C: Hegemonic Unity: This represents a coercive imposition of a single will upon the many. It often disguises itself as Type A, but functions as a prison, claiming "We are one" to prevent dissent and enforce conformity.

This spectrum is particularly vital when examining the Pauline metaphor of the "Body of Christ" (soma christou) found in 1 Corinthians 12 and Romans 12. For much of its interpretive history, this metaphor has been understood through the lens of "unity," specifically the Greek concept of homonoia. Homonoia, often translated as concord, unanimity, or like-mindedness, was a cherished ideal in the Hellenistic world and particularly in the Roman Empire. It represented political and social cohesion, in which citizens were expected to align their wills and purposes for the good of the state. Within the Roman context, this often manifested as a rigid, hierarchical organism—a Type C Hegemonic Unity—where the "head" (Emperor, elite) guided the "limbs" (lower classes). Disagreement, dissent, or deviation from the established order was seen as a threat to this homonoia, jeopardizing the health and stability of the whole. This form of unity was frequently a tool of control, demanding conformity and assimilation, and framing resistance as a "disease" within the body politic. Indeed, the suspicion often directed at the rhetoric of unity is justified, as it can function as a "Trojan horse" for obedience.

However, a significant body of scholarship, including works such as Christ’s Body in Corinth and A Theological Introduction to Paul's Letters, offers a powerful and necessary corrective. By interpreting Paul’s body metaphor primarily through the lens of Structural Union (Type B) – a deliberate gathering of distinct members – and further asserting that this Union is animated by the Organic/Voluntary Unity (Type A) of shared faith and mutual care, this scholarship unlocks a radically different understanding of the early Christian community. This perspective directly subverts and rescues Paul from the anachronistic imposition of Roman imperial or Stoic hierarchical ideology (Type C), revealing a vision grounded not in coerced conformity, but in covenantal participation.

In this re-reading, the soma christou is not a monolithic entity enforcing homonoia (Type C), but rather a dynamic Union (Type B) of diverse individuals striving for Organic/Voluntary Unity (Type A). The "members" of the Corinthian community, gathered together, are not being subsumed into a singular, undifferentiated whole, nor are they being locked into a fixed caste system. Instead, they are entering into a profound relational bond. The "binding glue" for this Union is not the authoritarian decree of an earthly power or the erasure of cultural or social difference, but rather "Jesus's faith, love, and care." This central commitment facilitates a "spirit of mutual care," fostering the spontaneous harmony characteristic of Type A Unity, where differences are not erased but acknowledged and integrated within a shared purpose.

This shift in interpretation illuminates several critical aspects of Pauline theology:

1. The Dignity of Difference over Uniformity: 

The Roman ideal of homonoia (Type C Hegemonic Unity) often demanded uniformity as a precondition for unity; difference was a potential threat. In contrast, the "Union" model (Type B), animated by the desire for Type A Unity, celebrates difference as foundational. Paul’s intricate discussion in 1 Corinthians 12, where "the eye cannot say to the hand, 'I have no need of you'" (1 Cor 12:21), moves beyond mere functional utility. It becomes a testament to the inherent value and indispensable nature of each distinct part. This is not a call for assimilation, but for mutual recognition and interdependence among those who retain their unique identities. The "Union" protects and elevates its distinctiveness, allowing varied gifts and roles to flourish within a framework that fosters spontaneous harmony. This profoundly subverts the imperial demand for every subject to conform to a dominant cultural or social norm. In Christ’s Union, social distinctions like "Jew or Greek, slave or free" (Gal 3:28) do not vanish, but their hierarchical power within the community is dismantled, as all are equally "in Christ."

2. Love and Care as the Constitutive Element, not Coerced Consensus: 

The homonoia of the Roman world, while idealizing unanimity, often achieved it through the enforcement of hierarchical roles and the suppression of dissent (Type C). Paul's vision of the Body as a Union, however, is premised on radically different terms. His sharp critique of the wealthy in Corinth for shaming the poor during the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11) is not an appeal for abstract "unity," but a demand for tangible acts of love and mutual care. A true Christian Union cannot tolerate injustice and humiliation among its members. The "spirit of mutual care" is not a byproduct of unity; it is the very essence that defines and validates the Union itself, creating the conditions for Type A Organic/Voluntary Unity. If the Union fails to embody Jesus’s love and care, it ceases to be the Body of Christ and risks becoming merely another social gathering susceptible to worldly power dynamics.

3. Christ's Faith as the Unifying Covenant, not Human Authority:

In systems demanding homonoia (Type C), allegiance is typically owed to the earthly power that establishes and maintains the order. The stability of such systems rests on human authority and control. In the Pauline Union (Type B) aspiring to Type A Unity, however, the ultimate "binding glue" is "Jesus's work and his faith." The members are united not by their common submission to an earthly hierarchy, but by their shared participation in Christ’s salvific act. This flattens hierarchical structures within the community, as ultimate allegiance is directed towards Christ alone. This is reflected in Paul's emphasis on imitation, where he instructs followers to imitate him only "as I imitate Christ" (1 Cor 4:16, 11:1). The authority resides not in Paul, but in the Christ he proclaims, thereby establishing a Union centered on a divine covenant rather than human coercion.

Conclusion: 

The danger of "unity," particularly when it echoes the demands of homonoia (Type C Hegemonic Unity), is its potential to serve as a rhetoric for control, demanding conformity and silencing difference for the sake of an idealized, often hierarchical, order. When a leader or institution calls for unity, the critical question becomes: "Unity on whose terms?" If unity means "you must accept your place in the hierarchy for the good of the system," it is oppression, embodying the Roman/Stoic trap. By re-reading the soma christou as a Union (Type B) that actively strives for Organic/Voluntary Unity (Type A), we recover the radical counter-cultural ethos of the early Christian communities. It was a gathering of diverse individuals, brought into covenantal relationship not by imperial fiat or the erasure of their distinct identities, but by shared faith, love, and care emanating from Jesus Christ. This is not a unity of coerced sameness, but a union of profound and respected difference, where the "weaker" members are honored and sustained, fundamentally subverting the prevailing Roman political philosophy. In political philosophy, this is often why pluralism—the ability to live with disagreement—is championed over unity that demands the erasing of disagreement. A "Union" that respects pluralism and fosters voluntary harmony is thus often safer for the individual and more genuinely communal than a "Unity" that demands total conformity.

NOTES:

See my publications about this topic of the body of Christ:

• Christ's Body in Corinth: The Politics of a Metaphor (Fortress, 2008).

• A Theological Introduction to Paul's Letters: Exploring a Threefold Theology of Paul (Cascade, 2011).
• How to Read Paul: A Brief Introduction to His Theology, Writings, and World (Fortress, 2021).
• Toward Decentering the New Testament (Cascade, 2018).
• “Reclaiming Christ’s Body (soma christou): Embodiment of God’s Gospel in Paul’s Letters,” Interpretation 67.1 (2013): 20-29.
• “‘Imitators’ (Mimetai) in 1 Cor. 4:16 and 11:1: A New Reading of Threefold Embodiment,” Horizons in Biblical Theology 33.2 (2011): 147-170.
• “Ethnicity and Race: Union with the Body of Christ,” in New Testament Ethics: Revisiting The Moral Vision of the New Testament, edited by Cherryl Hunt, Nicholas J. Moore, and Timothy J. Murray, 241-255 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, Apr 2026 forthcoming).

Super Bowl

This morning, I found myself reflecting on a cultural reality. Despite being a naturalized citizen, the frenzy surrounding the Super Bowl always reminds me that I am not originally from here. While I honor these cultural differences, I also recognize individual ones, be they in personality or speech. I have realized it is okay to live here amidst things I don't fully understand. I embrace the unfamiliar and the adventure of it all. I maintain who I am, while always being ready to evolve.

Reflection on Jesus: A Johannine Perspective

In popular Christianity, and among uninformed believers, Jesus is often reduced to little more than a superior Shaman—a figure expected to resolve any issue through magical power. Many babble empty phrases like "Jesus is everything" or "Jesus is the Way," asserting that there is no other path to salvation. They demand simple belief and worship, but in this context, faith becomes nothing more than a packaged product they purchase and think they possess. Consequently, they weaponize the gospel to invade or intrude upon others.

However, Jesus is not a Shaman of that sort. Declaring that "Jesus is everything" without substantial explanation is hollow. In the Fourth Gospel, Jesus never explicitly states, "I am God." His primary title is "Son of God," the one who does the work of God. It was a misunderstanding by his contemporaries to claim he blasphemed God; his point is always that he does the work of the Father as the one sent by him. He says, "I delivered the word (logos) of God," and explicitly states that the sender is greater than the one sent. Even when he says "the Father and I are one," this signifies not sameness, but a union with God, as he performs God's work.

He is the Son of God, sent to save the world by exemplifying the invisible word of God—truth, life, and light—within it. He was born to testify to the truth of God. The Johannine claim that "the Word became flesh" (John 1:14) does not necessarily suggest that God became Jesus or that Jesus is identical to God in a simplistic sense. Rather, the point is that the logos took the form of human flesh, specifically in the person of Jesus. This distinction suggests that the logos and the human Jesus are not synonymous; rather, the former is embodied by the latter. This is the hallmark of the Fourth Gospel, which was written so that people might believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God.

In John's Gospel, truth is not a possession; it is something experienced or manifested through following Jesus's teaching. His teaching points to the truth of God, insisting that God's word, or logos, must shine in the darkness.

With this Christological understanding, we can reinterpret the Gospel. All of Jesus's actions fulfill a specific mission: to do the work of God, not his own work, and to speak God's logos, not his own. Through this lens, John 14:6 ("I am the way...") can be reinterpreted not as an exclusive statement regarding salvation, but as a critical invitation to engage with Jesus's mission. It is a call to embody the truth, never meant simply to exclude other religions.

*For more of my works regarding John's Gospel:

• Truth, Testimony, and Transformation: A New Reading of the I Am Sayings of Jesus (Cascade, 2014)
• Toward Decentering the New Testament (Cascade, 2018)
• “The Johannine Realism about the Kingdom of God: ‘Born From Above, Born of Water and Spirit’ (John 3:1-21),” Currents in Theology and Mission 48.4 (2021): 22-26.

The Three Dimensions of Life

To live fully is to exist at the intersection of three distinct dimensions: the celestial, the terrestrial, and the communal. When we look up, we find the stars' perspective—that vast, silent "upward" reach that reminds us of our smallness and our capacity for wonder. When we look below, we are grounded by the "downward" pull of the material world—the fruit, the grain, and the rhythmic flow of rivers that sustain our physical forms. Yet, it is the horizontal dimension that defines the quality of our days. While the sky gives us vision and the earth gives us substance, our relationships provide the meaning. We are not solitary pillars standing between heaven and earth; we are part of a vast, interconnected web where our survival and joy depend entirely on the person standing next to us. To be truly "alive" is to balance this vertical orientation with a wide-reaching lateral embrace, acknowledging that while we may dream in the stars and eat from the soil, we navigate the world heart-to-heart.