relational theology
Monday, June 04, 2007
Christianity is about relationship not religion. It is a statement echoed in the writings of many a great theologian. Yet while a relationship with God is so central to Evangelical faith, as well as the focus of Scripture, there has been surprisingly little academic scholarship given to relationship as a serious theological methodology.
I've been working on a paper called "An Evangelical Relational Theology: A Personal Relationship with God As Theological Leitmotif". Where I begin to outline a theology based on the frame work of a personal relationship with God. I begin by outlining how relationship should be seen as the goal of Christian theology, and how it provides the foundations of that theology, and then sketch out how a relational paradigm should be applied as the leitmotif for interpreting Scripture and understanding doctrine.
Theology is something that should be done in community, and this is all the more true with a relational theology, so I invite your comments, contribution, and feedback on the article here.
Labels: Emergent, relational theology, relationship with God
RSS Feed 
19 Comments:
I agree with what you are saying and think that it is very important. I believe my theology could be summed up as 'relational theology' and think that this is central to life, the universe and everything. I suspect it is the paradigm (world view) for our time.
I have come to view salvation as relational, God and the trinity as relational, sin as relational (it is anything that breaks relationship on our part), Christ's atonement as relational (mentioned separately to salvation as being a specific part of it), and good theology as relational.
The one who loves God, loves their neighbour and loves one another as Christ love us is practicing good theology. The one who gives intellectual assent to a doctrinal framework more accurate than that person but who does not love is not practicing good theology. For one thing Jesus is the only human being with a perfect doctrine and there were details of God's plan he was not privy to (the time of his return), so if it's our doctrine which saves us we're all doomed, although there are consequences to having incorrect doctrine and we should make every effort not to mess it up. It is only God's revelation of what Scripture is about by his Holy Spirit which gives us right doctrine anyway.
That intellectual assent to a set of facts is not what belief is about is illustrated by the fact that on a number of occasions demons tried to reveal that Jesus was the Christ, something which would seem to make them saved if salvation is simply intellectual assent to Jesus being the Christ.
I think it would be good if you defined 'leitmotif' the first time you use it and perhaps a note about what small c catholic (universal) means would be good, I believe it we are going to communicate it is good to make to effort to make it accessible to as wide an audience as possible.
Also because you haven't defined biblical infallibility (that Scripture will accomplish the purposes for which God has given it) and have mentioned it in the middle of your point about inerrancy, these points could become confused by some readers.
Anyway, these are minor criticisms of what is an important essay and saves me writing it, I'll just put a link to your essay. Thank you.
Hey Snoop J,
Thanks for the comments and suggestions. I added a bit about the meaning of leitmotif as a theological term you can check out. Also I had actually meant to write "inerrant" so I changed that too. Thanks for catching that.
I loved he story about your little girl on your blog. That made my day
Could I suggest a book?
Being As Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church, by John Zizioulas.
Take care & God bless
Anne / WF
thanks, looks like a great book
Thanks for the detailed study. I generally agree. God wants to *relate* to us as loving Father through Christ. The wages of sin is indeed death, but we bring death into our relationship with God through our sins. God does not impose death on us as a punishment.
Have you heard of Christopher Marshall and is book Beyond Retribution>
I don't have time to read your article right now but I agree 100% with what you are saying.
I don't think of faith or works being nessesary for salvation so much as a relationship. Faith and Works will pass away but love will remain.
I'll read this when I get a chance (it is exam time for me right now).
Hi---I am a student at Colgate Rochester Crozer Divinity School in Rochester, NY
Pursuing an MA in theology--also to teach and publish and eventually receive a DMin in Transformative Leadership.
Current intersts are: NT lit and literacy, relational theolgy and narrative theology in connection with theopoetics and literary expression.
Keep in touch.
Peace,
karen
hey Karen,
So what are some of the books you've read in your studies of relational theology that you would recommend?
I'm a theology student and I'd like to do me thesis on the idea of relationship as a theological concept. I'd appreciate any direction from anybody on books i can research for this topic.
I liked Robert Webber's "Younger Evangelicals" a lot, which talks about the paradigm shift towards relational faith ("from proposition to incarnation", etc). Also, I have not read it yet but Stanley Grenz's " The Social God and the Relational Self" looks good.
i just wanted to commend you, the author of this theological work! It is very information and edifying and you really seem to have a polished understanding of the word of God. It blessed my spirit and I appreciate your work! I encourage you to continue to teach the gospel and continue to feed the body of christ with the KNOWLEDGE that we perish for a lack of! God Bless you I love you!!! SEE YOU IN HEAVEN :)
thanks :)
Nice treatment on the concept. Our little community has been working through this for awhile. I just gave a book by Baxter to my pastor to read, Jesus, that parallels some of the aspects you have mentioned. Good to know that we are not alone.
Good to hear Gary. I've never read Baxter, I'm intrigued.
I am wondering if any one on this blog, or any of the authors or theologians you have mentioned have looked at baptism through this motif. I was struck by the fact that most baptisms I have been to(Okay all of them) have centered around what people believe and not their relationship with Jesus. I am writing a class right now and thinking about incorporating a type of baptism vow. I was thinking about how covenants are all about what we vow to another and how our baptisms have strayed from that. ANy thoughts or resources that might help?
dear Coffee,
That's a fascinating question. Can I ask what tradition's baptism rite in particular you are thinking of? A Baptist or Pentecostal baptism rite would differ from say a Methodist or Presbyterian one. So it would help to narrow it down a bit so we are on the same page.
I don't know much about baptism rites. I have seen and done Pentacostal baptisms. These were, as I said before, focus on intellectual assent to the fact that Jesus is the son of God. Usually the pastor would just ask the person being baptized if they believed in Christ and his sacrifice for their sins. When the person said yes, the pastor would say they were baptizing them based on the confession of their faith. I really have no knowledge of what other denominations do in their baptisms. I have read a few baptism vows from the catholic church, which were more of the same (focused on intellectual belief).
My idea right now, is to have the person to be baptized write a vow. This would be a promise to "Forsake all others" and be joined to Christ. Have you ever heard of such a thing?
Coffee,
I come from a Pentecostal background too. I think it would be pretty easy to formulate these with a relational emphasis. You could say something like:
"have you accepted Jesus Christ into your heart as your personal Lord and savior, entrusting your life to him alone?" which would be at the same time pretty traditional, and also quite relational.
I'd say too that the term "believe" can be taken in two senses: One is intellectual as in "I believe that this blog is is colored green" and the other is a statement of trust as one might say as they watch their son play baseball "you can do it, I believe in you!" This later sense of belie as faith/trust is I think more legitimately the biblical sense of the word. In the same way a "confession of faith" could mean intellectual ascent to doctrine, but I always took it to mean a 'declaration of trust', a 'vow of allegiance' so perhaps all you would really need to do is keep the language and just say a few brief words beforehand that explain to the people (or remind them of) the relational significance of these words.
I think that we need to remember that baptism is not simply a witness to the relationship that we have with God in Christ, but also a statement about the relationships we are committing to in the church. Baptism has always been a ritual of induction into the church, and I think we would be doing it a disservice to forget that. The idea of relationship should always be cruciform: vertical, from God to humanity, as well as horizontal, from one individual to another and from one community to another.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home