Page 32 - EMCAPP-Journal No. 7

Foundational Discussions in Christian Psychology

it mimics the redemptive relationship Christi- and responsive to his creatures. A relational
ans experience with God through Jesus Christ.” view of God notes that God expresses regret
Thus the therapeutic relationship can be seen (Gen. 6:6, 1 Sam. 15:10,35), surprise (Isa. 5:2-4,
as a prototype for other healthy relationships. Jer. 3:6,7), and frustration (Exod. 4:10-15, Ezek.
The ability to perform redemptive counseling is 22:30-31). God suffers “because of his people”
related more closely to the counselor’s theolo- (Jer. 2:5), “with his people” (Amos 5:1,2), and
gical and spiritual insight, than to any specific “for his people” (Isa. 42:14) (Pinnock, 2001, p.
technique (McMinn, 1996, p. 242). Yet, as men- 56,7). The Father grieves when his children turn
tioned, many therapists inadequately integrate away and speaks tender words of reconciliation:
theological beliefs and therapeutic practice. “I will betroth you in…love and compassion…
Bringing a biblical/theological perspective on in faithfulness.” (Hos. 2:19, 20). God is clear-
relationship to the forefront can benefit psycho- ly affected by those he is in relationship with,
therapy. which explains the title of Canadian theologi-
an Clark Pinnock’s book, Most Moved Mover
Relational Theology (2001).
Relational theology is a new discipline, or
perhaps a reworking of some old concepts, Relational theology also emphasizes divine fle-
which emphasizes relational aspects of God. xibility. This is illustrated by the story of the
Traditional theology, which is largely influen- potter and the clay. Just as the potter had to re-
ced by Greek philosophy, has focused on God’s vise his plans when the clay was spoiled, so the
immutability, impassability, and omnipotence. Lord says, “can I not do with you…just as this
Divine transcendence and power have been fa- potter has done?” (Jer. 18:6). God is intimately
vored over immanence and love. In addition, involved with and creatively responsive to his
the nature of the Trinity has been viewed, much creatures. Relational theologians often refer to
like the imago Dei, in a structural rather than divine kenosis (following Phil. 2:6–11). Because
a relational sense, and there has been a relative God desires freely chosen relationships, He li-
neglect of the third person of the Trinity. Rela- mits himself. Divine sovereignty is demonstra-
tional theology seeks to offer a corrective and ted not through domination, but through sha-
an alternative to classic conceptions of God. ring power (Pinnock, 2001, p. 93).

The turn to relationship in theology can be Out of love and generosity, God chooses to
traced to the recovery of Trinitarian theology, create a world of interrelated creatures and free-
especially the relational nature of the divine ly chooses to enter into relationship with them.
person(s), and is associated with well-known Fretheim (2005, p. 270) stresses the interdepen-
theologians such as Barth, Rahner, Moltmann, dent nature of this relationship: although “all
and Pannenberg (e.g., Grenz, 2001, pp. 23–57; creatures are deeply dependent upon God for
Vanhoozer, 2010, pp. 105–24). The triune God their existence and continuing life…God has
is described as existing in community in an in- freely chosen to establish an interdependent re-
terdependent relationship of love and mutuali- lationship with the creation…with overlapping
ty, sometimes poetically named a divine dance. spheres of responsibility.” Similarly, Migliore
Relational theology also has roots in Wesleyan, (1991, p. 94) compares God’s relationship with
Pentecostal, and feminist theologies (e.g., Brint, the world with that of an artist—creative, free,
Oord & Winslow, 2012; Isherwood & Bellcham- playful but respecting the integrity of his crea-
bers, 2012). This view emphasizes divine love, tion. Late Canadian theologian Stanley Grenz
intimacy, responsiveness, flexibility, self-limita- (2000, p. 243) believes “the establishment of
tion, and human responsibility. community as the overarching purpose of God
forms the integrative motif or ordering princip-
Love, an implicitly relational term, characteri- le for systematic theology.”
zes who God is and how he relates to his crea-
tion. God engages his world not with mastery However, for love to be meaningful, there must
and control, but dynamically, being sensitive exist the possibility of non-love, or rejection of

31