The Point

Both.

I'd have to say both with a bias to relationship. You can be theologically correct without being relationally correct, but you can't be relationally correct without being theologically correct.

a year or so ago I would have said theologically correct, but today I don't know. Being theologically correct is all well and good, knowing how to better think and speak of God is a good thing. But I think you come to that point were it actually causes more harm than good, I'm talking denominations. I know a few people that will not have a relationship with other Christians because they don't go to the right kind of church.
Today, I think being relationally correct is more the point of this whole thing we call Christianity.

not sure you can keep it that narrow. I actually like Rob Bell's idea -- that its not about builiding a brick wall of theology but about jumping on a trampoline. The point is to invite others to jump with you. Actually, now that i think about that, it might lean more towards, as you say, being relationally correct.

AND,

I blogged today about a somewhat similar take, asking the question of what is more important to Christianity, Heaven or Love? I think my question seems to parallel yours, my friend. Read my post here:

http://blog.amoslanka.com/2008/09/03/heaven-or-...

I would say both, with the caveat that correct theology always has an end--correct vertical and horizontal relationships.

Theology is not an end in itself, but rather a means. It is our understanding of the way things are and this understanding necessarily shapes our passions and priorities. Therefore, a theology that does not end in the love of God and the love of others is, in fact, not a correct theology.

I know I asked a loaded question but I resonate with what Laura said. Theology that does not end in love is not a correct theology. I think that was what I was trying to get at with this question.

Theology is a bridge. Relationship (both vertical and horizontal--thanks Laura) is where the bridge takes you.

More on bridges here.

Grace and Peace,
Raffi

I have said this many times to people (I think I first read it in The Forgotten Ways by Allan Hirsch):

The Greek understanding says that right knowledge eventually leads to right action. So we go to school and university with the expectation that our knowledge will enable us to do the right thing in the work place.

The Hebrew understanding says that right action eventually leads to right knowledge. This is closer to apprentiship. Or all those storied where someone didn't believe something till they tried it and discovered it was true. Or the trick where if you want to be X, pretend and act as though you are a person who is X.

In relation to this question I would say that relationships is the point. And I would venture that correct theology would say this itself. Whether right theology leads to right relationships, or if right relationships leads to right theology depends, I think, on a thousand factors specific to the situation at hand.

For example: Today I was taught Y, but I don't 100% agree with it so I will try it out and see. Y worked, so now I believe it, and as I did it I also learn't how Y is nuanced by Z. Interested by this I studied Z further and got new ideas on how to live Y more effectively...

What does it mean to be "relationally correct?"

Theology is only the study of God. I studied about God for over 20 years and was so off the mark, they would have had to set up the proper target in the next county. Point is you can study God and not know God. To illustrate this point I present exhibit A: Matthew 7:21-23

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

Exhibit B: Matthew 25:41-45

Then the King will say to those on his left, 'Go away from me. You will be punished. Go into the fire that burns forever that was prepared for the devil and his angels. I was hungry, and you gave me nothing to eat. I was thirsty, and you gave me nothing to drink. I was alone and away from home, and you did not invite me into your house. I was without clothes, and you gave me nothing to wear. I was sick and in prison, and you did not care for me.' "Then those people will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or alone and away from home or without clothes or sick or in prison? When did we see these things and not help you?' "Then the King will answer, 'I tell you the truth, anything you refused to do for even the least of my people here, you refused to do for me.'

Exhibit C: Pharisees

Pharisees were theologically correct yet Jesus refers to them as whitewashed tombs, a reference to verses from Ezekiel. The wall was lacking and was covered up with a whitewash of theologically correct religiosity.

The answer is definitely relationally correct. We are asked to be in relationship with God. If we are in true relationship with anyone, we naturally think of their needs over our own. So where do we have people who are relationally correct without the knowledge of theological correctness?

Exhibit A: The Good Thief

He accepted and sought relationship with Jesus and gained eternal life.

Exhibit B: Zaccheus

He answered the call despite his being a tax collector.

Exhibit C: The woman with perfume

Her devotion to Jesus by giving what she had, not what she knew.

From the relationship comes knowledge of the Lord. Not from studying about God but being in relationship with God.

Thanks Brett for breaking it down like that.

Brett, I would suggest that the three you mention had at least a minimal amount of correct theological before relationship--they came to Jesus with certain assumptions.

Theological correctness need not refer to broad knowledge of doctrine, just a view of Jesus that corresponds to the way things actually are. If they had no knowledge of Jesus, they would not have come to him. That knowledge is correct theology, however minimal.