TH2205 Relational Theology

In what ways does your relational theology empower you to live faithfully in your world?
Jonathan D White (TH2) 2nd June 2011 Dr. Graham McFarlane Word Count: 2,871

Essay Plan Introduction Trinity & Imago Dei Current distance from the Imago Faithful living towards imago Dei Conclusion Word Count Bibliography 3 3 5 7 9 9 10

2 80510573.docx

Introduction The book of Genesis unashamedly states that we are made in the image of God (Gen 1:27). This is the first promise which we hear from the Bible about [humanity].1 Whilst the explicit phrase is not used greatly in scripture, the the ideas of the presence of the divine image in humankind occupies a central place in the Christian theological tradition.2 The imago Dei (image of God) has generally been understood as inclusive of all human persons, is understood as Christological from the perspective of the New Testament, and has a teleological element.3 This essay will explore the benefits of a relational theology in empowering one to live faithfully in their world. The exploration here presented shall focus on three areas, enabling conclusions to be drawn in the last section of the essay. The areas discussed are; our being made in the image of God with reference to Gods internal relations; our distance from the imago; and ideas for setting a new trajectory towards being the imago Dei. Historically, Imago Dei has been thought of in several ways. These include the image as structure, described through human capacity for rational thought; image as function, in that we are Gods representational or covenantal presence on earth; image as relation, in that we are designed for relation, reflecting Gods constitution in his internal relations; or the Multifaceted image, which is entirely beyond any one set of categories. 4 Trinity & Imago Dei Father, Son and Spirit are neither simply modes of relation nor absolutely discrete and independent individuals, but Persons in relation and Persons only through relation.5 Their identity is constituted through their relation to each other as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and yet they have a common nature,6 receiving and maintaining their identities through relations of a certain quality.7 It is these relations that will be explored in this section revealing an ideal for relations between God, self and neighbour (cf. Deut. 6:5, Luke 10:25-28). Unsurprisingly the relations between the members of the Godhead are difficult to understand:8 God has not revealed his structure definitively and as such [orthodox] trinitarianism depends upon a balance between

Moltmann, Man, 108. Grenz, Social, 184. Cf. 203. 3 Cortez, Anthropology, 16-17. Cortez states [for] many theologians, this teleological element is a result of sin the Eastern Orthodox tradition, the teleological element has been there [since Adam and Eve.] For further, extensive detail on the teleological scope of the imago cf. Grenz, Social, 223-64. 4 For further description of the different models of understanding the trinity mentioned, see Cortez, Anthropology, 14-40. 5 McFadyen, Personhood, 27. 6 McFadyen, Personhood, 27. 7 McFadyen, Personhood, 31. 8 Schwbel, Being, 145: The relationship of God to humanity as it constitutes human being as relational being and as it is disclosed in Gods self-revelation is only accessible from the perspective of faith, where Gods relationship to humanity is acknowledged as the foundation of human relational being.
1 2

3 80510573.docx

the indivisibility of God and the distinct identities of the three divine Persons.9 In attempting to hold this in tension one cannot push too hard for solid definitions of Gods ontology,10 as exerting too much pressure has produced pathological understandings of the nature of God namely modalism (one unified god who is revealed in three modes) or tritheism (three gods distinctly separate from one-another).11 The members of the Godhead relate perichoretically. Gunton defines perichoresis as the mutual indwelling and coinherence of the persons of the Trinity.12 Torrance in corroboration states, Christ and the Spirit in their oneness in Being and Act with the Father are both acknowledged and reverenced as Lord, together with the Father.13 Referring to Gods perichoretic ontology, he states [this] onto-relational concept of person, generated through the doctrines of Christ and the Holy Trinity, is one that is also applicable to inter-human relations, but in a created way reflecting the uncreated way in which it applies to the Trinitarian relations in God.14 As such, the imago affirms that humans are related to God, to other humans, and to creation and it is this relationality that truly images a God who is himself a relational being.15 However, this being patterned in the image of God is a now and not-yet reality it has a telos.16 McFadyen states that
Gods redemptive activity is [an] attempt to entice and empower us towards full responsible existence in Gods image, under the impact of which there is a repatterning and restructuring of ones [human] identity and relations.17

It is this repatterning of identity and relations that must now be explored. McFadyen reveals that relations function on two planes: the vertical (Gods relation to self and neighbour)18 and horizontal (the selfs relation to neighbour).19 Vertically, our proper response as humans with right identity and relation is characterised by call and response,20 to be Gods dialogue partner. 21 Complete with the ability to make what response [we] will [in] the form of conscious or unconscious rejection.22 Gods relationship with us is then both one of freedom and of responsibility to respond to God and to be open to him.23 Refusal to enter into this dialogue is possible, but human relation to God is inescapable. 24

McFadyen, Personhood, 24. McFadyen, Personhood, 25. 11 McFadyen, Personhood, 24-6. 12 Gunton, Towards, 45. 13 Torrance, Doctrine, 121. 14 Torrance, Doctrine, 103. 15 Cortez, Anthropology, 24. 16 McFadyen, Personhood, 18. 17 McFadyen, Personhood, 18. 18 McFadyen, Personhood, 18. 19 McFadyen, Personhood, 23. 20 McFadyen, Personhood, 19. 21 McFadyen, Personhood, 20. 22 McFadyen, Personhood, 19. Cf. Jeanrond, Love, 243. 23 McFadyen, Personhood, 20-1. 24 McFadyen, Personhood, 22.
9 10

4 80510573.docx

What, then, of our horizontal relation? Grenz would state that our being imago Dei is achieved in communion together with our neighbour, recalling the teleological aspect earlier presented:
The relational life of the God who is triune comes to representation in the communal fellowship of the participants in the new humanity. This assertion calls for a relational ontology that can bring the divine prototype and the human antitype together. 25

This bringing together of the divine prototype and human antitype is completed by the overcoming of the contradiction of sin [violation of relationship between God and humanity] through Gods justifying grace and by the acknowledgement of human createdness characterised by the life of faith26 that leads to right relation with God and neighbour. Moltmann states that it is through the encounter of Christians as imago that people will encounter God [in] his image he wills to be present himself on earth.27 It is this representation that Jeanrond classifies as love. He states that Love seeks the other. Love desires to relate to the other, to admire the other, to experience the others life, to spend time with the other.28 Jeanrond notes in the instance of the Johannine community29 that
love among Christians from within this community [was] praised as the highest form of love and defended as the primary means of constructing the identity of this local community against [the] outside threat of other religions and the inside threat of conflicting orthodoxies and forms of deviation.30

In short, it was the Johannine communitys relation to one another that kept it free from that which might mar its orthodoxy and orthopraxy. This section has revealed a number of key concepts that are relevant to the discussion here presented. These points are: a) relations between the Godhead are interpenetrative and coinherent, i.e. Gods ontology can be construed as relational; b) it is this relationality toward God, self, and neighbour that are to be reflected in the imago Dei; c) understanding relationality as part of the imago is key to understanding identity; and d) it is this that makes our relations representational to those outside of right relation with God and neighbour. Current distance from the Imago Classically, this disruption of relationship (that which causes it, and that which is caused by it) has been called sin. In highlighting our distance from the imago, it is important to provide an adequate construal of sin [that is] dynamic and relational.31 For sin is an essentially relational language, speaking of pathology with an inbuilt and at least implicit reference to our relation to God.32 This section will build such a construal by highlighting

Grenz, Social, 305. Schwbel, Being, 148-9. 27 Moltmann, Man, 108-9. 28 Jeanrond, Love, 2. 29 That is, the community written to in 1, 2 and 3 John. 30 Jeanrond, Love, 10. 31 McFadyen, Bound, 202. 32 McFadyen, Bound, 4. Italics mine.
25 26

5 80510573.docx

our distance from the imago, that is, our unfaithful relation to God (vertical) and our relation to neighbour (horizontal). McFadyen defines sin as living out an active misrelation to God.33 This misrelation is considerable: our refusal to enter into dialogue with God34 forces us to provide our own metanarrative which is ultimately anthropocentric and, as is shown below, toxic. Schwbel calls upon the biblical narrative as evidence, which from its beginning
graphically illustrates how this violation of the relationship between God and his creatures does not only distort their relationship to God but also mars the relationship between the sexes, the relationship of human beings to their bodily existence and their relationship to nature.35

Schwbel is clear: our lack of right-relation to God is the cause of misrelation to both neighbour and self. Sociologist Zygmunt Bauman ponders on societys understanding of neighbour-relation as absurdity:
it is enough to ask why should I [love my neighbour]? What good will it do to me? to feel the absurdity of the demand to love ones neighbour any neighbour. If I love someone, she or he must have deserved it in some way36

Douglas Hall points out the effects of this misrelation on our relations amongst our neighbour on a global scale by juxtaposing the apparent wealth of the West with global poverty:
[Westerners live] in the midst of a consumer society that is more and more acquisitive yet increasingly insecure; living with statistics about teenage suicide and environmentally caused disease and spouse abuse and joblessness; living with television pictures of emaciated Ethiopians37 on the one hand and Dallas on the other, many ordinary people find themselves thinking: There is something wrong, and it is us.38

Bauman expounds this situation, illuminating our distance from suffering. Our ancestors were hardly ever exposed to an occurrence of human suffering too distant to be reached by the tools in hand.39 Suffering, in times-gone-by, used to be immediately in front of us, it is now mediated by media outlets, creating distance and impotence.40 Not only are we distanced from suffering revealed to us across the world, but we are increasingly isolated from our (next door) neighbours.

McFadyen, Bound, 223. McFadyen, Personhood, 22. 35 Schwbel, Being, 149. 36 Bauman, Liquid, 77. 37 Perhaps the contemporary image should be Cte dIvoire, Haiti, Pakistan or Zimbabwe. Cf. Tearfund News. 38 Hall, Imaging, 7. Whilst this book comes out of an American context, it is interesting to note that contemporary ethical issues relating to our distance from the imago were already being considered. 39 Bauman, Liquid, 96. 40 Bauman, Liquid, 96-7.
33 34

6 80510573.docx

A spectre [of xenophobia] hovers over the planet Old and new, never extinguished and freshly defrosted and warmed up tribal suspicions and animosities have mixed and blended with the brand-new fear for safety distilled from the uncertainties and insecurities of liquid modern existence. 41

One report found that of two thousand households, 70% of those people wouldnt recognise their neighbour if they passed them in the street. Of those two thousand, 25% stated they wouldnt comment on someone acting suspiciously around their neighbours home. 42 We have become separated from the other, and in this we do not fulfil our responsibility to be imago. Gunton notes that this degradation of neighbour-relation has wider effects: [much] current misuse of the creation [humanity, flora and fauna], with its attendant ecological disasters, derives from a lack of realisation of human community within the world.43 That is, our disconnection from each other disables any action in response to the others needs, including those related to flora and fauna. Ultimately, due to our misrelation to God, we are far from good neighbour-relation, evidenced in our dislike of those who are different, even amongst those who are geographically close, and this, in turn, has effects on our relation to the wider creation, not just humanity. Our sin is profoundly dynamic and relational. Faithful living towards imago Dei As has been shown, a relational theology provides the tools to understand aspects of Gods triune relations in a way that is clearly applicable to our being imago Dei and outlines pathologies that arise due to incorrect human relation to God and other. The task now is to outline ways that this understanding can allow one to begin living a relationally faithful life towards others and self. Hall notes that there are resources within [Christian] tradition and spirit of biblical faith that provide the basis to challenge the existing imago hominis [image of man].44 From this biblical faith emerges a Christian anthropology that states that the relationship of God to humanity is the key to the understanding of all relationships in which human beings exist, including humanitys relationship to God.45 Ultimately, Gods relationship towards creation is one of love for [both] human beings and for [the entire] universe. God remains faithful in spite of all human failures and breakdowns in love.46 Gods internal relations give identity to each member of the Godhead, and it is these relations that provide humanity with the model for earthly, human relations. These relations enable us to stand fully in Gods image

41

Bauman, Liquid, 119. Legal & General, Strangers, 1. 43 Gunton, Trinity, Ontology, 60. 44 Hall, Imaging, 17. 45 Schwbel, Being, 143. 46 Jeanrond, Love, 243.
42

7 80510573.docx

whenever these identities and relations achieve a certain quality.47 The format for these relations was initiated by Jesus, who began a
relational process of reconciliation between people and God, between people, and between people and their own inner selves. The point of this multilayered process of reconciliation, however, is not to restore real or assumed forms of harmony in a distant or mythical past. Rather, the process of reconciliation confirmed by Jesus opens people for a radical transformation of their understanding of God, of God's people, or God's universe, and of their own selves. 48

Jeanronds comment communicates the teleological aspect of the imago something that we are progressing towards. It is necessary to work out, then, how one fulfils this telos. Perhaps, it is to simply to begin to think about loving God and loving our neighbours (the other) as ourselves the summation of the law (Luke

10:25-37).49 This he links to self-relation50 stating that in order to have a transformed understanding of self
(i.e. an ability to self-love) we need to be loved by, and accept love from the other - [our refusal] of love [from others] breeds self hatred.51 By loving our neighbours, we affirm that there is something unique to them, making that individual irreplaceable.52 But how do we see this come to fruition? Currently, much of the church, and humanity as a whole, does not reflect the image of God and as such does not live faithfully in relation to him, or his creation. But whatever the actual state of the empirical church, we know that in that sphere human beings are beckoned into new relationships with one another.53 We can begin there and thus beyond the fellowship as well to live out of a trust that overcomes the ancient addiction to suspicion that infects our race.54 This will force us to examine the shape of our churches, asking questions of how connected we are to each other, how effective we are in meeting each others needs, how accepting we are of those whom we deem unlovely. It may be necessary to understand that humans cannot maintain quality relationships with all people, all the time.55 Hall hypothesises that
the church of the near future, no doubt numerically reduced but also less beholden to worldly powers and superpowers, will prove the one inter- and transnational movement capable of upholding and communicating a vision of world community that is not just another cloaked ideology of empire.56

McFadyen, Personhood, 31. Jeanrond, Love, 246-7. 49 Bauman, Liquid, 78. 50 Albeit using the term self-love Bauman, Liquid, 80. 51 Bauman, Liquid, 80. 52 Bauman, Liquid, 80. 53 Hall, Imaging, 160. 54 Hall, Imaging, 160. 55 Economist, Primates. 56 Hall, Imaging, 160.
47 48

8 80510573.docx

Conclusion This essay has described how a relational theology can empower one to live faithfully in their world. This has been accomplished by a) the discussion of the internal relations amongst the Godhead and how humanity is ontologically and teleologically created in the image of God; b) commentary on how humanity is currently not able to fulfil this teleological image God; and finally c) by presenting a trajectory towards fulfilling the teleological aspect of imago Dei. The concepts presented in the last section are key to working out how relationality should be worked out in ecclesial contexts the world over. Ultimately, relationality has much to say about all spheres of life.57 Our challenge, then, is to work out these relations with much grace and help so that [we] can remain faithful in committed and mutual love58 toward those with whom we have relationship, living out the identity given to us by right-relation with Jesus.59 Word Count: 2,871.

57

One need just engage with Liquid Love by Bauman to appreciate the need for adjustment of our relations. Jeanrond, Love, 258-9. 59 As individuals do not exist simply by themselves but are always constituted by their relation to the other Pannenberg, Perspective, 180.
58

9 80510573.docx

Bibliography

All quotations of scripture are from the English Standard Version, unless otherwise stated. Bauman, Z., Liquid Love: On the frailty of Human Bonds, Cambridge: Polity, 2003. Bonhoeffer, D., (trans. J.W. Doberstein), Life Together, London: SCM Press, 1954. Cortez, M., Theological Anthropology: A guide for the perplexed, London: T&T Clark, 2010. Economist, "Primates on Facebook." Economist 390.8620 (2009): 84-85. Accessed from EBSCO Religion and Philosophy Collection at http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=7460c880-1937-449e-a84e6bc7bb68fc7a%40sessionmgr112&vid=1&hid=108&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d #db=rlh&AN=36794938 on 24/05/2011 at 1223hrs. Grenz, S., The Social God and the Relational Self, London: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Gunton, C.E., Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Essays Toward a fully Trinitarian Theology, London: T&T Clark, 2003. Gunton, C., Trinity, Ontology and Anthropology: Towards a Renewal of the Doctrine of the Imago Dei in C. Schwbel & C.E. Gunton (eds.), Persons, Divine and Human: Kings College essays in theological anthropology, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991, pp47-61. Hall, D.J., Imaging God: Dominion as Stewardship, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986. Jeanrond, W.G., A Theology of Love, London: T&T Clark, 2010. Legal & General, Next Door Strangers. The changing face of the British neighbourhood. Legal & General Website, accessed from http://www.legalandgeneral.com/_resources/pdfs/insurance/next-doorstrangers-report.pdf on 23/05/11 at 1432hrs. McFadyen, A.I., Bound to sin: abuse, Holocaust, and the Christian doctrine of sin, Cambridge: CUP, 2000. McFadyen, A.I., The call to personhood: A Christian theory of the individual in social relationships, Cambridge: CUP, 1990. Moltmann, J., (Trans. J. Sturdy), Man: Christian Anthropology in the Conflicts of the Present, London: SPCK, 1971.

10 80510573.docx

Pannenberg, W. (trans. M. J., OConnell), Anthropology in Theological Perspective, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1985. Schwbel, C., Human being As Relational Being: Twelve Theses for a Christian Anthropology in C. Schwbel & C.E. Gunton (eds.), Persons, Divine and Human: Kings College essays in theological anthropology, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991, pp47-61. Tearfund, News, Tearfund website (from http://www.tearfund.org/en/news/ accessed 22/05/11 at 2143hrs.) Torrance, T.F., The Christian Doctrine of God: One Being Three Persons, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996.

11 80510573.docx