Relational Theology
A Friendly Rebuttal to Bradley Jersak
Recently Bradley Jersak wrote a cordial pushback on relational/open theology. I have linked that essay here for context. As I read the essay I felt I was reading ideas that are assumed rather than actually from an open and relational theological framework. This is my very friendly rebuttal to some ideas within the essay.
I undertake this with a view to humility and understanding while also realizing this might be seen as hubris. But, what I see in the essay feels somewhat a caricature or mashup of ideas. Maybe this comes from Dr, Jersak’s friend who is mentioned, but I believe there is some conflation and misunderstanding. In an attempt to be succinct I won’t deal with all of the opening assumptions, but I believe some require discussion prior to the main points of the essay.
As the essay opens we are given a comment which mentions distinction, but the essay goes on to conflate relational theology with open and relational theology.
“I enjoy collegial relationships and good friendships with a good and growing number of ‘Relational Theologians’ (aka ‘Open Theology,’ though there can be distinctions).”
There is a very sharp distinction between relational theology and open and relational theology. One grand example is John Wesley who is thoroughly relational in theological thinking, but not open in the postmodern sense. Although many Wesleyans argue that to be Wesleyan is to be a type of open theist, this is different than open theology as a framework. This distinction is crucial because I think some of the claims about relational theology later hinge on a misunderstanding of what is meant by relational or what open theologians mean by ebb and flow.
As an open and relational theologian I see the entirety of creation as relational. It is relationship which is broken in the Garden. It is relationship which leads God to take on all of the risk in the Abrahamic covenant. The trinitarian cosmology in the Gospel of John is relational. Rubelev’s icon the Visitation of Abraham is a picture of relational truth in the invitation to dine with the trinity. These are ideas which we use as open theologians to show what we mean by relational theology.
This also highlights the claim that relational theologians distinguish relational and classical theology. I do believe there is a separation between open and relational theology (ORT) and classical theism as described in the late Roman period with Augustine and reinforced in the West. But, I also differentiate patristic theology and see it as a source rather than a foil. Of course ORT is a diverse theological framework, but many of us see a sharp contrast between the pre-empiric church and the post-empiric church. It is the post-empiric church that I mean when I say classical theolgy - a theology shaped by Augustine and the Weste distinct from the Eastern Church.
Within the patristics, we find kinship with an ORT understanding of sin, God in trinitarian relationship, and the pre-empiric Kingdom of God (which we label Kindom of God (source and sustaining work of God) as contrast to the Western ideology of sovereign control. Here we also find our shared understanding with Dr. Jersak of the universality of forgiveness and the efficacy of Christ’s work. We Wesleyan ORT folks are especially connected to the ancient East through our entire sanctification as a mirror of theosis.
Now I will attempt to engage with some of the points of observation made in the linked essay.
1. I get the impression that RTers think divine love is not relational if it is constant. Some tell me that unless God’s love somehow ebbs and flows, approaches and withdraws, then God is not authentically relational.
I would like to have discussions with the RTers who speak of divine love as ebb and flow. In my experience of ORT, love is the constant. This is the original thesis of Dr. Thomas Jay Oord’s idea of essential kenosis which is the view that God’s very nature is self-giving, others-empowering love, and that this love is inherently noncoercive. For Oord, God cannot act in a controlling way or override creaturely freedom, not because God chooses to hold back, but because perfect love is who God is. God’s love is not an ebb and flow, but the constant in who God is and how God acts. This may be a differentiator, but I do not see it as wide a chasm as is presented.
2. But I also suspect the dynamism of the human experience of fluctuating love gets projected onto God’s nature. God’s refusal to ever turn away or withdraw transcends the capacities of human love.
3. I do believe our relational experience with God is dynamic, but the ebb and flow are not because God withdraws from us, but that we experience the ups and downs of our own passions, our own faithfulness, our own fickleness, while God’s love never ceases to flow through our lives.
Like the previous claim, these two criticisms are those that ORT might level at “classical theology.” God never turns away, God is never apart form creation, and the incarnation is a revealing of that truth rather than an invasion into creation. Human beings do make decisions and ebb and flow in relationship, but in ORT, God is always there, always wooing, and always loving. ORT places the responsibility of response on creation. But ORT also sees God as responding to that response and maybe that is the ebb and flow, but I am not sure.
4. Relational theology draws from those Scriptures where God is said to come and go, has a change of mind, even repents of having made us. So do I. But it feels to me like they read these texts literally.
I do not think we read these any more or less literally than other passages. But, we do see the understanding that God may change God’s mind, but not God’s nature. For an example, we see the argumet between the writers of Nahum and Jonah as an argument over the character of God in metaphor and what if God is a God of possibility and invitation. God being able to repent is an idea that ORT believes to be evidence of the depth of God’s love for and presence in creation. Humanity has a penchant for destruction as opposed to God’s ongoing work of creation
5. So, I would insist that Infinite Love shines on all, fills all, and is united to all in perichoretic relationship, without separation. We are not children on the beach beside an ocean, watching its tides ebb and flow.
6. Rather than an unmoved mover, we see our Bridegroom as one who never leaves or forsakes us, faithful to his unbreakable covenant that is stronger than death.
As an ORT theologian all I can say here is AMEN and AMEN!
7. I’m thankful for my RT friend’s clarity. Other relational theologians may see it differently, but his description is consistent with my conversations. To me, the RT God doesn’t sound more relational or more loving, and certainly not more trustworthy. To me, he sounds like a human husband whose love can, on any given day, grow further or shrink back. In fact it must for it to be real relationship!
If this were my experience of ORT, I would reject it out of hand. But I do not believe this to be an accurate description of ORT. My experience of ORT is of a God who loves fully and without restraint. If I had to summarize ORT within the work of Thomas Jay Oord (the source I know the best), I would say that there are five main ideas on this road of possibility:
The future is open. God and creation experience an undetermined future of possibilities together—the future is not exhaustively foreknown or fixed.
Creatures have genuine but limited freedom. Humans and other creatures make real, moment-by-moment choices that are not controlled or fully determined by God or deterministic forces.
God is relational and affected by creation. Rather than being aloof or unaffected, God gives and receives in relation to creation, responding moment by moment to what happens.
God’s power is noncoercive love. God influences creation by empowering and inviting, not by controlling or coercing. Thus, God’s power is loving and relational rather than unilateral control.
Love is central to God’s nature and activity. God’s primary essence is love, and God calls creatures to cooperate in loving and flourishing relationships, which includes empathy, invitation, and empowerment.
Thus when I read the following, I once again find myself saying, “Yes! That is the God we speak of in ORT!”
8. God’s love and relationship to us is not to be inferred from my experience of human relationships or even by my fluctuating sense of God’s presence. Rather, 1 John says, here is how you know the love of God; here is the relational dynamic running through apostolic and patristic theology from the beginning: The love of God is revealed in the ultimate kenotic pursuit of Christ on the Cross, who gives himself entirely to us (and never stops or retreats), even into the grave. Trinitarian relationality never sees God coming and going, but always God and humanity inseparably united IN the hypostatic person of Christ. I.e., You cannot separate Christ.
I could be misreading the criticisms, but as a whole, I feel they do not describe ORT as I know it. My closest and primary influence in ORT id Dr, Thomas Jay Oord and I do not see the criticisms mentioned in his work. I do believe that ORT, like any framework or system, can be fairly criticized. But I believe the strongest critics would be liberation theologies and Reformed theologies where the power of God becomes as important as love in the former and control becomes important in the latter. But I do not find Dr, Jersak’s criticism as accurate criticisms of ORT as given in the essay.
Ultimately, I personally see theology as an ongoing work of improvisation similar to jazz. I am constantly in conversation with others and with various ideas that help me to grow and to better understand God. The rich tapestry of theology is present within our shared tradition and history. While I find ORT to be compelling I also recognize that it does not resonate with all human beings. But, I also hope we can all engage with one another in respect and with keen hearts to understanding one another more fully.
If you are interested in learning more about ORT I have a few introductory sources below. There is some diversity of thought so these are helpful for understanding that diversity.
• Thomas Jay Oord’s Open and Relational Theology: An Introduction to Life-Changing Ideas (2021), which clearly lays out the foundational concepts in an accessible form.
• Also by Thomas Jay Oord is Pluriform Love: An Open and Relational Theology of Well-Being (2022), which explores the theology of love and well-being from this perspective.
• Gregory Boyd’s God of the Possible (2000), a key introduction to open theism, closely related to Open and Relational Theology.
• Clark Pinnock’s The Openness of God (1994), a seminal work challenging traditional views on God’s foreknowledge and power.
• Tripp Fuller’s Divine Self-Investment: An Open and Relational Constructive Christology”(2020), which dives deeper into Christology from an open and relational angle.
In addition, Oord’s work on the replacement of Omnipotence with Amipotence is described in the book, The Death of Omnipotence and Birth of Amipotence.
There is also a two volume set in which arguments for, criticisms of, application, and expansion of Amipotence are presented by many very diverse authors. (Full disclosure: I was the primary editor for this project, but I receive no financial benefit from it.)
You may also want to visit the Center for Open and Relational Theology:
https://c4ort.com
This is so helpful! Thank you. I commented on Dr. Jersak’s original post, but this is a much more exhaustive and articulate post of how I felt. I agree that I don’t feel like he captured ORT well. And I also suggested Pinnock’s book (though I gave credit to Basinger). Thanks for the extra reading material!
Thanks for this good response to Brad, Brandon!