The author is right that “relational theology” covers a wide array of thinkers. But that’s exactly why the label fails. If the only common thread is that these views sit outside classical doctrine—and if they share neither method nor metaphysics—then “relational” isn’t a theological category. It’s a catch-all.
Open theism, process theology, feminist theology, womanist theology, liberation theology, evangelical “relational” models—these do not arise from the same questions, assumptions, or aims. They have different understandings of God, different understandings of time, different understandings of power. Grouping them under one heading hides those differences and adds nothing to analysis.
That leads to a second point.
Not everything that borrows theological language is actually theology. Some projects are primarily social or political in origin. Womanist theology, for example, grows from the marginalization of Black women and seeks recognition, justice, and social repositioning. Those aims deserve respect, but they are not a doctrine of God. Relabeling every grievance-based movement as “a theology” drains the word of substance.
If each of these views must be examined on its own—and none shares a coherent framework—then they should be treated as distinct proposals, not as branches of a supposed “relational” family. The author’s own repeated qualifiers (“many but not all,” “some but not universal”) show the problem: the term doesn’t unify anything.
If there’s no shared metaphysics, no shared doctrine of God, and no shared method, then “relational theology” is not a tradition. It’s a coalition. And coalitions aren’t categories.
The honest approach is simple:
If you want to defend open theism, defend open theism.
If you want to defend process thought, defend process thought.
If you want to defend feminist or womanist voices, defend them on their own terms.
But folding them into a single “relational” tent suggests coherence where there is none.
Thanks, for sharing your thoughts. A few quick thoughts in response.
- Most theological categories are as diverse as ORT.
If strict metaphysical agreement were required, we’d have to retire labels like patristic theology, classical theism, Reformed theology, and liberation theology. None of them are internally uniform. They function because of family resemblance, not identical systems.
- ORT does have a recognizable centre. Across open theism, process, feminist/womanist, and evolutionary streams, you’ll consistently see: real relationality, creaturely freedom, an open future, non-coercive love, and a responsive God. Not identical, but coherent enough to count as a field.
- Contextual theologies are still theology.
Womanist, feminist, and liberation thinkers aren’t “grievance movements." They’re doing what Augustine, Aquinas, and Luther also did. They’re interpreting God through the lens of real lives and struggles.
- Seems to me Coalitions regularly function as categories.
The Alexandrian school, the Cappadocians, the scholastics, the Radical Reformers, all coalitions, all legitimate categories. ORT fits the same pattern.
- Your critique holds ORT to a stricter standard than classical theology. Augustine ≠ Aquinas ≠ Palamas ≠ Scotus, and yet we still speak meaningfully of “classical” theology. ORT has at least as much internal coherence as any of these.
- ORT - a loose umbrella?
It’s a recognized scholarly field. It has conferences, publications, academic networks, and shared debates. The AAR identifies it as a real category, not a casual grouping.
- Last thought, the goal here isn’t to collapse differences. Open theists, process thinkers, queer, feminist, and womanist theologians remain distinct voices. The “relational” tent simply names the meaningful conversation already happening between them.
“Those aims deserve respect, but they are not a doctrine of God. Relabeling every grievance-based movement as “a theology” drains the word of substance”. I would beg to differ, here, on the description of womanist theologies as a movement based on grievance. Womanist theologies have been around since Mary Magdalene, Mary, etc.
Beautifully written, Michael! Thanks!
Relational Theology: A Category That Doesn’t Hold
The author is right that “relational theology” covers a wide array of thinkers. But that’s exactly why the label fails. If the only common thread is that these views sit outside classical doctrine—and if they share neither method nor metaphysics—then “relational” isn’t a theological category. It’s a catch-all.
Open theism, process theology, feminist theology, womanist theology, liberation theology, evangelical “relational” models—these do not arise from the same questions, assumptions, or aims. They have different understandings of God, different understandings of time, different understandings of power. Grouping them under one heading hides those differences and adds nothing to analysis.
That leads to a second point.
Not everything that borrows theological language is actually theology. Some projects are primarily social or political in origin. Womanist theology, for example, grows from the marginalization of Black women and seeks recognition, justice, and social repositioning. Those aims deserve respect, but they are not a doctrine of God. Relabeling every grievance-based movement as “a theology” drains the word of substance.
If each of these views must be examined on its own—and none shares a coherent framework—then they should be treated as distinct proposals, not as branches of a supposed “relational” family. The author’s own repeated qualifiers (“many but not all,” “some but not universal”) show the problem: the term doesn’t unify anything.
If there’s no shared metaphysics, no shared doctrine of God, and no shared method, then “relational theology” is not a tradition. It’s a coalition. And coalitions aren’t categories.
The honest approach is simple:
If you want to defend open theism, defend open theism.
If you want to defend process thought, defend process thought.
If you want to defend feminist or womanist voices, defend them on their own terms.
But folding them into a single “relational” tent suggests coherence where there is none.
Thanks, for sharing your thoughts. A few quick thoughts in response.
- Most theological categories are as diverse as ORT.
If strict metaphysical agreement were required, we’d have to retire labels like patristic theology, classical theism, Reformed theology, and liberation theology. None of them are internally uniform. They function because of family resemblance, not identical systems.
- ORT does have a recognizable centre. Across open theism, process, feminist/womanist, and evolutionary streams, you’ll consistently see: real relationality, creaturely freedom, an open future, non-coercive love, and a responsive God. Not identical, but coherent enough to count as a field.
- Contextual theologies are still theology.
Womanist, feminist, and liberation thinkers aren’t “grievance movements." They’re doing what Augustine, Aquinas, and Luther also did. They’re interpreting God through the lens of real lives and struggles.
- Seems to me Coalitions regularly function as categories.
The Alexandrian school, the Cappadocians, the scholastics, the Radical Reformers, all coalitions, all legitimate categories. ORT fits the same pattern.
- Your critique holds ORT to a stricter standard than classical theology. Augustine ≠ Aquinas ≠ Palamas ≠ Scotus, and yet we still speak meaningfully of “classical” theology. ORT has at least as much internal coherence as any of these.
- ORT - a loose umbrella?
It’s a recognized scholarly field. It has conferences, publications, academic networks, and shared debates. The AAR identifies it as a real category, not a casual grouping.
- Last thought, the goal here isn’t to collapse differences. Open theists, process thinkers, queer, feminist, and womanist theologians remain distinct voices. The “relational” tent simply names the meaningful conversation already happening between them.
Take good care.
“Those aims deserve respect, but they are not a doctrine of God. Relabeling every grievance-based movement as “a theology” drains the word of substance”. I would beg to differ, here, on the description of womanist theologies as a movement based on grievance. Womanist theologies have been around since Mary Magdalene, Mary, etc.