jump to navigation

The Relational & Transactional Models of Our Interaction with God

January 12, 2009

Write your comment | Print This Post

Dear Friends,

There are two models of God's interaction with man that we would like to explore as they have profound implications for how we think about our relationship with our Heavenly Father. The first model we will call the Transactional Model. In this model, God deals with men in a series of transactions in which there is a predictable result. The second model in which God deals with man we will call the Relational Model as its basis is interpersonal. While also predictable, it is less instinctive; especially to those who have an inclination toward legalistic thinking.

Let's explore them more fully. We'll start with something simple and then look at something a little more complex.

When we read our Bible, we can view it either transactionally or relationally. When we view it from a transactional perspective, here are some of the thoughts we can have floating around in our heads.

Now some of these thoughts or actions might be good and at least partially true. However, these ideas can also be problematic. When we focus on the transaction, we can get a misplaced emphasis and end up with some bizarre, unhealthy or damaging thoughts and behavior.

A more healthy approach to Bible reading is the relational approach. In this model, it is the end result of Bible reading – a better relationship with God and Christ – that is the goal of which Bible reading is simply a means to an end and not an end unto itself. The relational approach puts the emphasis on the "why" of reading the Bible. The "why" is I am reading to transform my thoughts and behavior to make me more like God and Jesus. The transactional model puts the emphasis on the "what, when, where and how" of reading.

When we instead focus on the transaction of Bible reading, we can have a hundred possibly different ends in mind. We can read so that we can impress people with our Bible knowledge. We can read because we feel guilty if we don't. We can read because someone expects us to do it so we do it reluctantly or even possibly hating that we have to do it. However, if we are reading to build a better relationship with God and with Christ, we must do so with pure motives and with a clear vision of the goal in sight.

The transactional model also makes us susceptible to eccentric behavior that can hurt the effectiveness of the exercise. When we view the transaction as the vital thing, how we actually perform the transaction takes on a greater import than it should. We may focus on the non-essentials of the matter such as where you read, when you read, what translation you read out of and so forth. Some of these issues may take on an unnatural importance. We may even insist that this way of reading our Bible is the only valid way to do it. We may actually do things that are counterproductive to the transaction. For example, we may insist that a person read out of a difficult Bible translation who does not read very well or for whom English is a second language because "this is the way this must be done." When we get this myopic, we may be causing more harm than good.

Let's look at these transactions again in light of what we have learned and see what a truer statement might be for each in light of the relational model.

We'll pick up here next week, Lord willing.

Have a great week,

Comments»

1. Colin Green - January 12, 2009

This series has promise of huge insight and I shall follow with great interest. Legal v Love? As Christadelphians we are terribly “legal” – “transactional”. Once I thought this to be right. I now believe it to be naive. It is just a beginning – not the “end” to which we must aspire.

But then the other swing is “love” – “relational” – it feels so much better and can be so fulfilling and healing. But we can then abandon what is right – “anything goes” at an extreme. Which is of course, wrong.

Kyle’s summary (“true” and “truer”) is wonderful and is the beginning of great building blocks. We take God’s commands and can view the transactions indicated to progress and build the relationship.

Can something transactionally “wrong” (like David’s men eating the shewbread) be relationally “right”? I seek to know the answers as as a Christadelphian I have always been “transactional”.

And of course I just might be jumping the gun and anticipating a direction that is not planned!