Is God relational because He meets us – or does He meet us because He is eternally relational? This is a profoundly important question in Christian theology and therefore in Christian counseling. While a relational God feels compelling, and can be profoundly therapeutic, it is dangerous if this doctrine is poorly grounded.
The theological landscape of today has been profoundly influenced by personalism. Personalist theology has rightly emphasized God’s nearness and relational presence. But when this emphasis eclipses God’s ontological fullness, divine personhood risks being understood primarily in terms of how God functions for us rather than who God eternally is. God’s relationality, then, is often defined in functional and therapeutic terms. This often feels compelling to modern Christians. We live in a highly therapeutic culture and we certainly want to know that God cares about our hurts, connects with our sorrows, and relates to us in covenantal ways. If, however, God’s relational identity is grounded exclusively in his acts towards us, we will not have much comfort in those seasons of prolonged suffering. When God’s relational identity is grounded primarily in what He does for us, divine life becomes subtly conditioned by human history, experience, and need— a move that sits uneasily with the doctrine of God’s absoluteness.
The concern is not relational language itself, but whether contemporary accounts of divine relationality can coexist with the classical Christian confession that God is absolute—fully complete, self-existent, and unconditioned by creation. Our concern is not whether God is relational, but how His relational identity is grounded—whether in His eternal life within the Godhead or primarily in His actions toward us. We are attempting here to distinguish between what theologians call the economic and the ontological Trinity, and clarify which has priority. If we ground God’s relationality in what He does, not who He is eternally, we will find little support for the deep hardships of living in a broken, sin-cursed, world. If God is relational primarily because He acts for us, it can create instability because it subtly assumes that such activity in the face of suffering will be (1) immediate, (2) constant, and (3) clear. These expectations are not merely emotional or cultural; they arise when God’s relational identity is no longer anchored in His absolute being but inferred from observable divine action.
First, grounding God’s relational identity in His activity leads us to assume His activity towards us will be immediate. If God’s relational identity is primarily expressed through action (comfort, intervention, felt presence) then long seasons of silence or unresolved suffering create theological anxiety. This framework often means that we are uncomfortable with any delay in God’s activity. Of course, we are always uncomfortable with delay; we want God’s intervention in a specific way, right away. The God-as-activity approach, however, dramatically increases that discomfort. Ultimately, it’s uncomfortable because when God’s relational identity is tied to his activity then inactivity will make Him feel distant.
An ontological relationality can sustain waiting because we know who God is regardless of the immediacy of His activity. When I know who God is whether He is acting or not then stability is possible regardless of delay. This makes a big difference in the counseling room.
Second, grounding God’s relational identity in His activity leads us to assume His activity towards us will be constant. Suffering always raises theological questions: Has God changed? Did I do something wrong? Is God distant because I failed? When the divine identity is sourced in His activity it makes God’s presence a variable. He can be inconsistent; He can be conditional. In our sorrows we want something profoundly sturdier.
An ontological relationality will assure us that silence does not alter who God is. His activity is important, and valuable to us, but when we don’t experience that activity it does not alter who God truly is. We can stand confident that He will never leave us nor forsake us no matter how we experience His presence in a hard season.
Thirdly, and finally, grounding God’s relational identity in His activity leads us to assume His activity should be clear. Because His actions are His identity then prolonged suffering seems to tell us nothing about God. It becomes pointless, meaningless, and useless. Suffering without some clear, detailed explanation of what God is doing in the midst of it will leave us on the verge of hopelessness and feeling utterly abandoned by God.
Again, an ontological identity provides more robust footing. When God’s relational identity is tied to who He is in His essence, His eternal nature, then even without explanations I have confidence that God is who He says He is. He does not change even if my circumstances do not improve.
In each of the aforementioned assumptions, the stability once provided by God’s absoluteness is quietly replaced by expectations shaped by experience. This leaves us with real theological and therefore therapeutic instability. We will want to unpack in more detail what a constructive look at God’s relational identity means, but for now I hope you can see some of the shortcomings of the alternate view. God is relational, that is a fundamental truth that we never want to lose – especially as Biblical Counselors. Yet how we ground this doctrine will provide either robust help in times of crisis or thin therapeutic resources. If God’s relational identity is grounded primarily in His actions toward us, then the doctrine of divine absoluteness must either be redefined or set aside, and that is a big shift away from classical theism. That is precisely what has happened in modern theology. How this theological shift occurred—and why it has felt so compelling—will require closer examination.
Sparrow & Heart Soul Care 