I’m very interested in hearing some voices on the matter of relational development. Much is being made about the need for relational ministry in the emerging church, and there are some phenomenal methodological advances being made in the field.
What I am concerned about is the theology behind these relational developments. It appears that most of the development in this area is sociological rather than theological and the Bible is being used to justify methods rather than being the epistemological source.
Has anyone seen a developed theology of relationship?
Try the Relationships Foundation
You’re in luck - we had a lecture the other day by Michael Schluter of the Relationships Foundation. Copying from the handout he gave us:
The foundation: Christianity is a ‘relational religion’
Trinity as an understanding of God in terms of relationships (Jn 1:1) Covenant is a word which describes a particular kind of long-term, committed, faithful relationship (Genesis 15:4,5) The meaning of ‘righteousness’ in the OT (tsdq) is primarily ‘right relationships’ rather than only absence of guilt in a judicial sense The Cross is about reconciliation, a relational term (2 Co 5:17-18) Eternal life is about ‘knowing God’ (Jn 17:3) Ethics is summarised by the word ‘love’, which perhaps in this context means ‘other-person-centeredness’ (Matt 22:34-40) Lifestyle: Christian lifestyle is not primarily concerned with prophetic gifts, financial sacrifice or even being martyred for the faith; it is about the quality of relationships. (1 Co 13:1-3) Personal goals: Paul describes his own goals and the goals he believes that other Christians should aspire to in terms of relationships (Eph 1:17, Phil 3:7-10) Jesus is our role model for perfect relationships. We are to be ‘conformed to the likeness of Christ’ (Rom 8:29)You might not agree with all that but at least it should give you something to bite on. :) The Relationships Foundation themselves might have some more work on this.
Relational Covenants
That’s great stuff. Interpreting righteousness in terms of covenant relationships can really alter our take on most of the Bible history. Rather than seeing the Law as a list of do’s and don’t’s, it becomes the requirements of a good relationship with God - a shadow of good things to come [Hebrews 9:1]
Re: Theology of Relational Development
I think that you might need to define the chracteristics that you are looking for in a theology of relationship. Do you mean a theology of personal human relationships? If so, I’ve been to churches that have redefined their faith into a mushy personal relationship with Christ, sometimes combined with personal experiences of love through the Holy Spirit, all overlaid with nearly sexual overtones that leave me a little quesy.
If you are talking about more general human relationships, it seems to me that this is central to theology of Jesus in the gospels. From what I remember of “A Generous Orthodoxy”, the Anabaptists have a good understanding of this in terms of personal, neighbourly relationships, while the “liberals” have developed this into an understanding of public relationships.
If you are talking about even more general relationships, then we again have a public/personal split. Recent eco-theology has begun to take into account our formal relationships to our environment, but if you are wanting a more personal approach try Francis of Asissi and other mystics. Centuries ago they understood in an intuitive way what we are now only beginning to appreciate through our formal/public knowledge structures. Unfortunately for us, I don’t think that they were that interested in creating systematic theologies to compete with traditional theologies that largly ignore relationships.
If you are wanting my opinion as to what a worthwhile “theology of relationship” would look like, I think it incorporate much of Anabaptist neibourliness, liberal public responsibility, eco-theology, and mystic consciousness. I think popular forms of the ‘personal relationship with Jesus’ sort of thing is a dead-end because of the anti-relational foundation of the theology, what ever words they use to express it.
I think lathos has mentioned some points that can serve as a useful basis. His description of ethics, lifestle, personal goals, and Jesus demonstrate how relationship should be at the centre of all theologies.
Some of the more traditional concepts need to be redefined in more fully relational terms. The unchanging (and therefore dead) absolute haunts much of our theology. “Covenant” and “righteousness” is not just about our relationship with God, but is also about reintegrating the public and personal views of our relationships with each other and the environment. The Cross does not display God’s model of relationships as much as Pentecost, in which the Spirit comes to live with/in us forever, and will cross all cultural and language barriers to establish himself and us in new relationships.
Most significantly, as all life is inherently growing and relational, the “knowing” that consitutes eternal life needs to be a dynamic relational knowing between eternally growing and developing entities. This is why traditional theologies will never accept relational theology.
If relationships constitute the core of what it means to exist, then who we are is determined/defined by our internal and external relations. As our relationships develop, we grow. External relationships are inherently bilateral, so as our relationship with an other develops, their relationship with us also develops. So as we grow by developing our relationship with God, so he grows as that same relationship develops.
A true relational theology will take God off his transcendent absolutist throne and place him at the centre of all relationships in the universe. He is the ultimate living being who desires relationship and grows as he relates to his children (human and non-human). Someone who truly believed in relational theology might even dare to call God “Dad”.
Re: Theology of Relational Development
Thanks for your input. I will try to clarify what I mean by a theology of relationship (it might be better to refer to it as a relational theology).
Relational FailureAt the core of our being is relational purpose. Humans were created for two relationships: with God and with each other. In essence, the interpersonal relationship between Adam and Eve derived from their connectedness to God.
Sin interrupted the relationship to God, and thus interrupted the true interpersonal relationship. Sociologists tell us that we derive our value through relationships. Thus, a young woman often views herself as others view her rather than how she truly is. The subjective criteria for value is our perception of other’s perception.
Thus, we have Cain murdering Abel - perhaps because rather than deriving their interpersonal relationship from their connectedness to God, Cain tried to derive his relationship from the relationship itself. When Abel received God’s favor, Cain attempted to level the field by removing Abel rather than attempting to correct his relationship with God.
This is obviously self-defeating. One cannot derive relational value from unbalanced relationship. Sin may then be said to be the ultimate relational imbalance. Humans were created to relate to God, but in the absence of that relationship, humans attempt to substitute relationship with man. Since these relationships were supposed to be co-ordinate and sub-ordinate to the relationship with God, they are inherently unstable.
The Covenant FunctionGod’s solution to the relational shortcoming was the covenant. Whether it was the covenant of the Law or the covenant of salvation through Christ, the covenant’s function was to restore relationship. God was not attempting to enforce righteousness or to demand obedience but rather to restore the foundational relationship - and therein bring peace among mankind.
I would be very interested in developing this further through open discussion. Creating a biblical relational theology? Sounds pretty ominous.
Re. Theology of Relational Development
I like what you’ve got going here. It’s a really good understanding, as far as it goes about relational theology. However, I think that you miss something crucial when you say, “Humans were created for two relationships: with God and with each other.” I believe that based on the biblical account of creation, humans were actually created for three relationships:
When God creates humanity in Gen. 1 & 2 he says not only, “Let us make human beings in our image, make them reflecting our nature” but God also said, “So they can be responsible for the fish in the sea, the birds in the air, the cattle, And, yes, Earth itself, and every animal that moves on the face of Earth.”
And, as the biblical creation account unfolds we see that Adam & Eve’s primary work role” was to care for the garden, and all the plants and animals therein—even to the point of naming them.
In another vein, it is interesting to note that the only point at which the writer of Genesis portrays God as having a “discussion” within himself is in direct relation to God’s creation of humanity. God doesn’t “discuss” within himself the creation of the stars, or the earth, or the water, or even the animals…only humanity. To me, this seems like a huge hint from the writer as to what God considers to be the primary characteristic which humans bear that makes us in the image of God—God is relational within himself (Father, Son & Holy Spirit constantly relate with each other in love)—we constantly relate (heathily or not) with God, each other & creation.
Notice that God even sets up for us a “trinity” of relationships, modelling (on a very small level) the true Trinity.
It is also worth noting, that, after the fall when God is telling them the consequences of their disobedience, each of the levels of relationship that are listed above distorted and broken:
To sum up: I believe that any theology of relationship must include at its core, how humanity was created in God’s image (as relational beings) and that that image was designed to be in three directions (not two) God-human, human-human, human-creation.
i.h.s.,
Daniel Zylstra
Relational Theology inspired by creation account
You were also wondering whether relational theology is inspired by the Bible or simply could be justified by it. Speaking for myself, I was not interested in what could be called “theology of relationship” until I discovered it in Genesis 1.
The whole of creation is shown to be developed by differentiation, harmonisation, and integration. The fall is shown to take the steps from separation, to enmity, and finally to domination, undoing the steps of creation (domination finally suppressing the original differentiation). These are all inherently relational tasks, and has since formed the basis of my whole theology.
I have previously thought of my theology as a creation theology, but upon reflection could just as easily be called relation theology. Is this the sort of thing you are looking for?
I am currently working on the theme of the ‘Presence of God’ which seems to be the central theme of many parts of the Bible. In fact it is the theme of the first two verses of Genesis and the last two verses of Revelation. It is the theme of the Exodus. It is the meaning of Immanuel. It is the reality of Pentecost which I think should be considered the climax of the Gospel stories. I think the emphasis on God’s active presence (rather than his actions) shows that relationship is what we were always supposed to be about.
— edit —
p.s. pastorerik, I just read your second comment after I posted this comment. I think you present an interesting narrative that complements my thinking nicely. I’m going to spend some time thinking about it to see how they work together. … ominous!? :-)
Re: Relational Theology inspired by creation account
Absolutely. It is ominous in the sense that it threatens to deconstruct our entire Western theological structure which is built on the negative concept of redemption - sin. Relational (or creation) theology views the world through a positive lense. Sin is simply the obstacle God overcomes rather than being the limitation of man.
I like where we are going with this and we seem to be going to the same destination. Theology, like the Biblical narrative itself, is not necessarily systematic as it is thematic. The recurring themes of the Bible are more important than the minutae that bored me to tears in seminary.
We must discuss this further. I must say this is a fascinating approach to theology. I honestly must confess that I thought I was the only person in the world struggling with Western theology in such a broad way.
A Relational Theology example
I have experienced a wierd example of the power of relational theology.
A primary task of creation/relationships (as I see read it in Genesis), is that of differentiation. The key crises in the first few chapters of Genesis come when Adam differentiates himself from Eve and God, and then Cain differentiates from Abel. The problem is that the differentiation is improperly attained or handled and leads to separation, enmity, and death. Traditional theology tends to say that this differentiation should not have occured in the first place, while the relational model shows that it is a key step, but the steps of harmonisation and integration need to follow.
An ironic example I have seen of this is in the Willow Creek “Network” course (identifying spiritual gifts). It allows people to differentiate and figure out a way to harmonise and integrate with the ministry of the church. But it is a really disgusting course: it is based on an obviously artificial distinction between the spiritual and natural, it grossly misuses the Bible to justify a questionable psychological test, it uses tick boxes and equations to determine God’s will for you (some evangelical mission leaders have preached against it because it ignores the role of God’s call). It is a horribly disfigured version of Christianity when viewed from either a conservative or liberal or emergent point of view.
But many people love it and it has genuinely empowered many of them. It has even attained a sort of cult following (sorry, the pun is more tragic than humerous). My interpretation of the testimony I have heard from many people is that it was the first time they were allowed to differentiate in a positive way, they didn’t have to “be like … to be involved in ministry”. Its success is built squarely on the fact that it is partially based on the metaphor of a relational body as a model for how the church should be. Even a massive misapplication of that model can not hide the truth of a relational theology.
Imagine the power of a fully developed relational theology that isn’t just window dressing for secular techniques designed for job placement in corporations. (If I have misunderstood the Willow Creek Network course, please correct me)
As you say, theology has to come to the discussion at the beginning as a senior partner, not as a tool to justify the latest fad in pop psychology. Psychology is useful and should itself be a tool in testing and developing relational theology, along with historical practices of spirtual formation and the modern developments in practical theology. You are certainly not the only person struggling with the choice between archaic, pedantic, anti-relational theology and more recent sociological theology, which seem to be the two current streams of Western evangelical theology.
Differentiation
I think that what you said about differentiation is really key.
It is not that differentiation is evil. God himself distinguished the male and female roles [Gen 1:27] but then we are shown how those roles are both harmonized and integrated in the secondary, expanded narrative. [Gen 2]
Relationship exists where differentiation is established. The nature of the covenants was a differentiation between God and man, then a resolution of these different participants into a relationship. When we attempt to make the differentiation, however, we create harmful relationship and act in ways opposed to God - evil and sin. I like it. I like viewing the matter through this lense.
Network & Spiritual Gifts Tests
I have always found these kind of test oriented structures to be inadequate. People find them useful because they are desperate for the relational distinction. They want to know who they are, and they want to know so badly that they will take any concrete method by which they discover identity.
For me, I took several spiritual gifts tests, and I found that trying to quantify the work of the Spirit is like trying to catch air - it just keeps out of reach.
I pastor a small church of about 60-70 people. It is a rather traditional church with traditional views, whereas I am sitting here in my office co-developing a radical theological departure. For most of the people in the church, they have found their identity through whatever the previous pastor taught them or whatever self-help course they took. For me, this stuff does essentially nothing. They are relational beings who have accepted knowledge as a substitute for knowing. They often behave more like a class than as a community.
They see the word through the eyes of dichotomy - the separations of spiritual and physical, of sacred and secular. They have not grasped that the Bible views the human as a single, holistic being or that it views the work of God in their lives as comprehensive, not pin-points.
Our Greatest Challenge
The way I see it, the greatest challenge to relational/creation theology is theology itself. Every school of theology I have encountered started out with a desire to know God (a relational mandate) but somewhere between there and completion, the theology becomes this either hyper-rational system or worse, a disjointed, incomplete collection of opinions. The way I see it, most theology isn’t really about God, it’s about man.
As we form its embryonic nucleus, it appears that relational theology will address more of the WHY than the WHAT of belief.
The Third Place
I am in the middle of reading The Great Good Place by Ray Oldenburg. Oldenburg is a professor of sociology who puts forward the theory that human relationship thrives on three different places:
The Home The Workplace The Third PlaceThird places can be just about any kind of informal, communal existence - Irish pubs, German beer gardens, Main Street in pre-WWII America or even the church of the 19th century. It is a local, communal relationship in which people are honest and forthright.
Oldenburg is not a Christian, but I think he has observed a relational need that exists in humanity. I would add a fourth place - the overarching place in relationship with God. But this is not a place, as much as it is a relational existence.
One of my main desires in developing a relational theology is to forge some kind of spiritual third place. To alter the nature of the church-that-is so it comes into line with the church-that-should-be.
Many who worship with us on a Sunday morning come out of duty or seeking entertainment rather than being incorporated into the church as their 3rd place. The result is a relational starvation of sorts - without the informal connection with others who are connected to God, they face life utterly alone despite the presence of their home and work relationships.
What we are trying to put together is an entirely different kind of church in which the relational nature of God takes center stage. I believe someone posted in this thread that God needs to become the center of the universe’s relationships. If it wasn’t in this one, it was somewhere on the site. This is especially true in the body of Christ.
Our view of God is him sitting in judgment or of Jesus teaching, and thus we seek out worship patterns which allow the "preacher" to sit in judgment or the "teacher" to lead massive classes. These have been substituted for genuine, authentic co-existence. We are missing out on a vital part of our necessary existence.
So, what do you think? You see where my need for a relational theology comes from? I believe theology should determine activity, and I think our view of theology is faulty and thus our activities are faulty.
Re: The Third Place
I think the three places provides an interesting basis of discussion of relationships. There is a ton of information of how to have God in your family relationships, and a fair amount of information on a limited sphere of “third places” (home/cell churches), but hardly any useful information about the work place.
I have talked with a group of people working on a theology of work. Given then huge amount of time that we spend at work, it is strange that it is hardly acknowledged in our hymns/choruses, sermons, or even public prayers. There is alot of work to be done in breaking down the secular/sacred divide and brining God back into the work place.
I also know of work in expanding the “third place”s that God can work in, such as “cafe church”, but there is still along way to go before we think of all our third places as places where God is in our relationships, or where our church gatherings fulfill their relational potential and become a “third place” as you have described it.
Work Theology
You are absolutely right. This all-important facet of our lives is viewed as tertiary. Most preachers either focus on the church or the family but never is the workplace in view. Oh, they might make some comments about our activities at a place of employment, but that is rarely the primary thrust.
A theology of work is certainly a component of relational/creation theology. We were, of course, created with the mandate to tend the garden - thus the principle function of work is the care of God’s creation. It was after the fall that work was tranferred from this primary pleasure status to a sustenance status.
I’d be interested to see how that theology of work comes out and how well it could integrate with the relational/creation theology.
Relational theology resources
I’ve done some searches on relational theology, and there is a ton of stuff tagging a huge variety of theologies as relational theology - from the “personal relationship with Jesus” stuff through to the sociology/psychology style theologies. They all add something to the mix, but don’t really encompass what I think we are looking at.
There are a few gems that I have found so far. There is a review of human relationality in philosophy and science and its application to theology:
Reforming Theological Anthropology: After the Philosophical Turn to Relationality by F. LeRon Shults
I haven’t read the book, but a number of reviews make me very interested. It seems to investigate a relational theology based on the fundamental relational nature of humans. Here is a review of the book.
This is a more detailed review, but some of the discussion is a little beyond me.
I also found an attempt to use the mathematical tools for studying relationships (network theory) into the study of theology. It uses alot of mathematical jargon, but I think brings an interesting perspective to the discussion.
Scale-Free Networks as a Structural Hermeneutic for Relational Ecclesiology
here are some quotes:
also
I am still looking for a place that brings together the different threads of relational theology. The Relationships Foundation seems to be more focused on application rather than primary research, or am I looking in the wrong place?
Can anyone help?
The Object of my Desire.
Let me encourage you all to take a look at Object-Relations Theory. I know, it may be beginning at the end to have psychology inform theology, but it’s worth a look. It’s basic stance is that human beings need tranistional and transformational objects to carry them through life. Objects, that is, that prove trustworthy and help develop trust in the individual. These objects (most often parental figures) must be internalized in a way that allows for a healthy development.
The differentiation you wrote about would be called destruction. For example, a child makes attempts at “destroying” parents in order to see how they respond. A “good enough” parent helps a child transistion through the stages of life. Life is full of scenes that are acted out with this object or objects. These scenes, then, leave us with scripts that determine how we will respond in future scenes in which we find ourselves. If there is no object or the object proves untrustworthy, trust is replaced by fear and shame. Shame/fear defenses are those outlashes that we generally call sin.
Obviously, all of this finds it’s fulfillment in God through Jesus Christ who is “internalized” by the Holy Spirit. The main difference with traditional theology is that faith’s focus is trust rather than belief. Through Jesus Christ, God proves to be the ultimate object in which we can place our trust, casting out all fear. With the Spirit’s help we develop “scriptural scripts.” Hopefully, that leads to responding the way Jesus would.
What I appreciate most about O-RT is it’s view of the human condition (shame and fear) and the required solution (trustworthy love). Of course, there can only be shame if there is an inherent dignity (image of God) which we sense has been damaged or buried or distorted. Only God’s love can bring it to the surface once again. I also appreciate it’s distinction between individuality and individualism. The individual always gets a bad rap in church conversation, but that seems over done to me. The church has done a disservice (actually promoted individualism) by not highlighting our individuality. We need to look no further than Paul’s individual members in one body.
Anyway, some thoughts on relationships.
Psychological Influence on Relational Theology
Thanks for your thoughts and the additional information. I do think that looking to psychological theory in advance of looking at the Biblical evidence is a cart before the horse situation. Psychology is an art, derived from observation and survey. It conjectures possible solutions to the human condition, and while much of what you say would appear to explain some of the issues in the relational theology I am proposing, I would rather arrive at the conclusions from the Bible and then point out the validity of the psychological theory.
In other words, I believe that relational theology will be a Biblical theology. You may have noticed that a number of observations we have made have been drawn strictly from Genesis. This is the starting place for our understanding of relationship. It is easy to be drawn into NT verbage and examples but ignore the germain and crucially important information provided to us in the millennia of Biblical history before the NT.
I would like to see us begin to propose tenets upon which we can establish this relational theology.
Proposed Tenet of Relational Theology
Relational theology is a biblical theology, deriving its foundational values from the ancient narratives of the Pentateuch and Job and then seeing their outworking
Late Relational Theology comment
I apologize for being delinquent in addressing the relational theology issue but I have not visited this site in a while and just looked over what everyone had to say. Some of us are having a discussion on a blog with a specific focus on the very quesiton of theology and relationship. We are building our discussion around the term “interrelational,” which we believe more faithfully pictures a body with a common foundation and purpose. If you would like to join us in this discussion we would love to have your imput. I certainly do not wish to take anyone’s involvement away from this blog so if you desire to know more I would be happy to discuss it in more depth on this blog. I apologize if you have moved beyond this discussion and seek to focus on something new. May God bless all of you this weekend.
Jason Glen
www.interrelationalchurch.blogspot.com
Theology of Relational Developement
Yes, I believe that Jesus was all about relationships but first He ate His food. He said that His food was to do the will of His Father. His relationship to His Father was primary from which all other relationships flowed. He expressed His love to others with compassion and with rebuke by telling them the truth of their hypocrisy, hoping that they would see themselves, turn and accept His healing and salvation. We are to do likewise. A servant is not greater than His master. He humbled Himself and taught us to esteem others better than ourselves. The emerging, relational church focuses on helping others in the Body of Christ. Have we first done that in our own homes and families? I know I have been guilty of being selfish at home, so why do I think I could do any better with those outside my family? I need to go back to the source, Jesus Himself, and allow Him to create in me a clean heart-a true heart of the Life and Love of God, so that I will produce fruit which will last. I believe the church is trying to make a program once again of forming true relationships and are bypassing the relationship from which only true relationships can come from-the one with Jesus Christ Himself.
Jesus' Relationship with God
I think that essentially, you are correct - that we must understand Jesus’ relationship with the Father in order to understand other relationships. All relationships flow from the relationship with God.
I would, however, define Jesus’ relationship with God in the context of the greater revelation. His relational righteousness with God stemmed from his human nature being completely bound to his spiritual nature. As a human being he was (and is) what we were created to be. Sin severed this relationship, creating a necessity in human existence which Paul referred to as many things such as “the flesh”, “the old man”, etc.
More later.
Re: Jesus' Relationship with God
Pastor Erik,
I agree basically with what you say, but the subject of your space illustrates a basic problem that we Christians have with our basic doctrine, the Trinity. If Jesus is God just as fully as the Father is God, then why do we speak about Jesus’ relationship with God, instead of Jesus’ relationship with the Father, or the relationship of God the Son with God the Father.
This may be a quibble, but I don’t really think so. We really need to think of Jesus as fully God AND fully Human. This is the mystery of the Incarnation, which makes clear the full significance of all humanity (please note, both male and female) being created in the image of God.
God the Son could not come into our world as a human being, unless human beings had been created in the image of God. Furthermore the image of God is not a physical image, but a relational model, the ability to create, to choose, and to love, Creator, Savior, and Spirit.
Love and Peace,
Relates