'We have relationships; God is the relations that he has'
Nicholas Lash Believing Three Ways in One God: A Reading of the Apostles' Creed (London: SCM, 1992), 32
By the way, I am simply suggesting that these propositions are memorable, not necessarily agreeable!
posted by Chris Tilling @ 12:56 AM
7 comments
I am New Testament Tutor for St Mellitus College and St Paul's Theological Centre, London. In my postgraduate research (under the supervision of Max Turner) I’m working on a thesis that concerns the christological significance of the language Paul used to describe the relationship between risen Lord and believer. My blog, Chrisendom, is primarily occupied with biblical and theological themes – especially those Apostle Paul shaped, but I try as best as I can to squeeze in a decent amount of inappropriate baloney on the way. For more about me, click here for my interview with biblioblogs' Jim West.
7 Comments:
As an inveterate googlifier, I googled this quote and found that following this quote Lash says :
".. God, we might say, is relationship without remainder, which we most certainly are not."
What is "relationship without remainder"?
A great question! Do give his short book a read.
This is why systematic theology gives me a headache. What's the point of saying something like this? I don't see the importance of the distinction or why it matters. Besides, isn't God in relationship with humanity? Does he not "have" this (these) relationship(s)?
Sounds like a line out of Hegel; obviously a sound of its own but one very familiar. I'll give it a look-see.
Hi Pat, I hear you. Though I would suggest a reading of the little book for a bit of context which may reduce your headache a bit!
Hi Che, certainly Hegel has played a part in the relational approach for some! I'd be interested to see if you find something more specific.
I am not against this 'being-as-relation' view so much as puzzled by it.
"God is relationship without remainder"
I just do not know what that means. Is it meaningless nonsense? Or is it an important point made with heightened rhetoric (as I am inclined to think)? Or is it the plain truth and I am too tied in to western metaphysical traditions?
I guess I would wish to affirm the centrality of relationship to both divine and human identity. So to that extent I agree with the quote you mention (and the one Plessey quotes).
But to suppose that identity can be boiled down to relationship without remainder ... that is where I start thinking, "Huh?"
It is hard not to think in terms of something being in relationship with something else. What is 'relationship' detatched from the somethings that are related?
To say that relationship is central to divine identity is to say that there is no 'something' complete in itself apart from relationship (in God's case this is relationship between the Persons of the Trinity). But similarly there can be no relationship apart from the 'somethings'-in-relation. To say that God IS relationship leave me ... little the wiser as to what has been said.
OK - I know I am confused but Hey! I never did get metaphysics!
Hi Robin, well put.
You would enjoy Harriet A. Harris, "Should we Say That Personhood us Relational?" SJT 51 (1998): 214-34
Post a Comment
<< Home