Professor Suk,
Your assertion that the Western theology of a "personal relationship with Jesus" is actually Western secularism in disguise is an interesting premise. While it may not be without merit, there are some weakness (at least I think) in your opinion.

First, the logical of "because the words aren't found in Scripture it's therefore not biblical" is a fallacy. There are many biblical concepts that we express using non-biblical language - such as the Trinity.

Secondly, I do appreciate your call to remember the transcendence of God - that certainly is a critique of Western Christianity that is justified. But, let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. God is transcendent, but He is also imminent. There a scores of references throughout Scripture that show how His character can be experienced and interacted with by the believer. Psalm 63:1-5 and the "fellowship with the Spirit" in Philippians 2:1 and Romans 8:15-17 jump out immediately. (I know there are many more, but I haven't had the time to do more adequate study).

Your call to the church to shed its secular trappings is commendable. But, let's not forget that the fellowship we will have with God in heaven begins here on Earth.

I apologize for the long comment in advance, but this one struck a nerve. I am also disturbed by the number of people who talk as if they have some direct link to God.

Maybe my faith is weak, but God doesn't speak to me. At least not directly enough that I can invoke his name to support the little bit of insight I found in the scripture this afternoon.

So many Christians talk about their personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

That sounds good, but what does it mean? I can barely maintain my relationships with people I can see and touch. I am pretty much out of sight, out of mind.

So you can imagine that I don't feel as close to Jesus as I do to my wife. How can I? I've never seen Jesus!
I'm not talking about some metaphysical conversion experience that transcends space and time. I'm not talking about Jesus in others, the least of these kind of stuff.

I'm talking about the Jewish guy from 2000 years ago. Like Thomas, I want to see him if I'm expected to have a relationship with him that is more than just an analogy.

So to those people who say, "This morning in my quiet time, God told me..." What are you talking about? How does God tell you things? Do you mean your personal insight into God's Word through scripture? If that's what you mean, why do you say "God told me" in a way that sets yourself up as some sort of prophet?

Professor Suk

I thank your for your thoughts concerning a personal relationship with Christ. I would suggest that the Bible if full of language that suggest a personal relationship. We are children of God, personal relationship. We are the Bride of Christ, personal relationship. We are friends of God, personal relationship; we are bond slaves of Christ, willing slaves, personal relationship. There is also language to suggest that God feel as though he has a personal relationship with us. He gets jealous, he says when we are not faithful to him it is adultery, a huge violation of a personal relationship. God says he is a father, described as a lover, calls himself a friend and tells us to love, serve, devote, speak, and much more. All this language points to a personal relationship.

Faith in Jesus; belief in Jesus; is one aspect of this relationship. For many it is the entry way to a relationship with Christ and if healthy becomes a part of how we build this personal relationship with Christ. In a world that is hurting, by the devastating thing you describe or by cancer, murder, abuse or any other form the destructiveness of sin takes in our world I cannot think of anything more comforting than a personal relationship to the God who made all things, controls all thing and who loves me.

I say lets not lose the language but let’s clarify the overwhelming majesty and wonder of the one we have this relationship with. Let’s not merely seek to know about Christ but to know him personally and intimately.

As for the analysis of the sermons done by Whitten; To ascertain what a church is preaching cannot be done by examining a sermon preached in a church. It must be done over the period of at least several months as a variety of subjects are covered. Only then can you determine the breadth of teaching. Thanks for a great article and for your work for Jesus!

I have felt some of the "doubt, or perhaps anger," that Prof. Suk addresses "because [I] didn’t experience Jesus the way [my] Christian friends claimed to." It probably began at 8th grade camp when my counselor told me, "Randy, Jesus Christ is as real to me as this rock I am sitting on." I have longed for that elusive "reality."

At the same time, I am disturbed by Prof. Suk's apparent failure to consider the very real and very personal language of relationship between man and God that permeates scripture. Abraham was called the friend of God. Enoch and Noah are described as having "walked with God", a term that seems to signify an intimate relationship with the almighty.

I admit that the language of personal relationship with Jesus can be confusing at times (though it is not always or necessarily so). However, it is, I believe, both a biblical concept and quite appropriate. As with most of life, balance is needed between the language of immanence and the language of eminence; but I pray that we will never sacrifice one for the other.

I think Pastor Suk has some great points here, especially the concern, in general, of making sure that we don't secularize God, His character, the Bible, etc. At the risk of sounding like I can't think for myself (I hate it when my students do this), yet to save space and typing time, I will simply complete that idea by refering back to what Kevin said above, and adding that I look forward to reading more comments by people wiser than myself about this discussion. However, since I work with very secular teenagers, I feel the need to add a question regarding the final paragraph of Pastor Suk's blog because it's a real issue that I'm trying to addres with my students: How would you suggest we handle the cultural issues of the definition of belief and faith? I don't disagree necessarily, but would like some ideas and thoughts on helping students understand what those words meant to Peter and John, verses what they mean to post-modern, American high school students.

Professor Suk,

Thank you for your wonderful reflection. Our infatuation with the self in America, has led us to form God in our image. Rather we are suppose to be formed in the his image. We have also become conformed to the world rather than being transformed.

I have seen nausiating poverty across Africa as well and it makes me angry that our churches in America have the "Jesus is my homeboy" syndrome. This is not the real Jesus any more than the plastic plug in night light Jesus I have on my wall. Or perhaps along the lines of the every famous Jesus pictures where he is Swedish, has clairol hair and is wearing a sash.

Kevin - all of our extra biblical or historical theological affirmations such as the Trinity were determined well before "personal salvation." We need to revisit orthodoxy, because most of our contemporary evangelical churches are not very Trinitarian either!

Blessings Dr. Suk

It sounds to me like Dr. Suk is, sadly, lacking a personal relationship with Jesus!

The Biblical reference is from Revelation 3:20, plus some simiplified not-quite-Trinitarian interpretation of Jesus' description of the ministry of the Holy Spirit in John's gospel. We have the mind of Christ, remember? He is very present with us and in us, and prayer is supposed to be two-way communication -- in other words, A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP. If, when you talk to your Father, he doesn't talk back, you may in fact not be a true son. I can't see any true Evangelical - or Trinitarian - believing otherwise.

This was a great post, but I think it is lacking in many ways (but what can one expect froma one page article?

You quoted David Wells
"It is ridiculous to assert that God could become more real by abandoning his own character in an effort to identify more completely with ours."

Isn't this almost exactly what he did through Jesus?

I do understand though the language being a barrier, but language is always a barrier with us and God, afterall he is God, so if we throw out this language and get new language it will still be lacking. Even if we take your suggestion to say that we have faith in jesus because you will have many that will jump all over that and claim that their faith is living and brings power and gives all these weird results because of use of that language.

Though, you are right I think when you come down to it. We tend to as humans speak like that counsellor did to the grade 8, when talking about God to others. In fact, i can probably recall when i said something almost as similiar. I just thank God every day that Jesus sacrifice was enough to restore my relationship with God, and while i know its not the same as my relationship with my parents or my girlfriend i can be rest assured that no matter what i call it it won't matter because it doesn't depend on me anyway.

As a confessional Lutheran, I find myself constantly conflicted in discussions like these. I agree with Professor Suk about the bastardized "relationship" language used in evangelicalism. Note, the problem isn't with the concept, per se--I affirm with previous commenters the biblical truth of being God's children, etc.--but what it has come to mean in our therapeutic culture. Jesus is my buddy, my self-esteem coach, be he doesn't rebuke and he certainly doesn't die on a cross for my sins. And can we agree: if our lopsided relationship with God--He as giver of all things, we as whores--were a human relationship, most of us would be getting out right quick.

I'd disagree, however, in Suk's outright rejection of God's abiding presence on earth (lo, he's with us always). As a Lutheran, I confess that Christ IS indeed present on earth: in his Word, and in his Sacraments (baptism and the Lord's Supper--ironic Professor said we can't 'share a glass of wine' with Him). Christianity is unapologetically earthy; God being made flesh testifies to that. To take it a step further: Suk directs the reader to reflect on their status "in Christ." This is a concrete reality, effected in baptism.

In short: I agree, and I disagree. But the dialogue is good.

Interesting thoughts. I'm disturbed by the "either-or" language and mentality however. As mentioned by others, the personal relationship reference is not foreign to scripture even though the exact phrase isn't used. Intimacy with God is also not foreign to Scripture and just because someone says they haven't "felt" that doesn't negate it's importance and validity. More than our semantics, I think the church lacks the ability to communicate that intimacy is more than a feeling or emotion. Instead of throwing out the entire concept of intimacy and relationship to embrace a vague, nebulous concept of "faith in..", let's embrace both and teach people correctly that there are many ways to experience intimacy and relationship and it doesn't all have to rely upon feelings, tingles and voices. I'm becoming more and more concerned with writers and other leaders in the church attacking the common semantics of Evangelical Christianity and abandoning it for semantics that lack any kind of power and meaning in the life of the individual.

This is an interesting dialogue. "personal relationships" are so ..well, personal. I agree that it's the language that's the problem. Jesus is real to me, and yes he does speak - but you need to listen. There is a tendency in the western church to forget God's transcendence - that He is a holy and awesome God and that sin is abhorrent to Him. The "good buddy" or as we would say in the land down under "mate" approach is particularly worrying. I think it's all tied up with the "I'm in love with Jesus" Hollywoodised gospel. Following Christ is tough, he tells us to count the cost - take up our cross and follow him. Loving Jesus may mean that you will die a martyrs death - China and Middle Eastern countries being prime examples in our day. That's so much more than the rather nebulous "personal relationship" idea of being a Christian. Our faith cannot be built on feelings but rather needs to be centred on the rock - Jesus, whether we "feel" anything or not. Feelings won't get you through a difficult situation but Jesus and the Word will.

To persons who are claiming that Personal Salvation is biblical - please supply Scripture.

Most interesting post. We are in a time when followers of Christ are reassessing all that has gone before and finding some of it untrue, some lacking in todays world and some pure gold.

I agree with the need to lament. We live in a desperate world with injustice all around us. Our theology needs to prepare us for this and stand up to the awful practicalities we see around us.

I wonder though if in accord with Calvinistic views there is a fatalism and a helplessness which runs through. Jesus came to announce the Kingdom which like yeast in bread would gradually spread through the whole world and transform it. By waiting for the return of Jesus to make everything right, we are surely absolving ourselves of the responsibility to do anything ourselves.

Professor Suk is dead on with this one. The constant rant of "Religion, not relationship!" belies something that most people deny: their own underlying anti-intellectual tendencies. I do not mean that all of life should be dumbed down to cold, lifeless propositions. However, to assert that we can have this elusive 'personal relationship' without reference to Scripture is terrible- and what Professor Suk is combatting here.
On a side note- Professor Suk never denied the abiding presence of Christ with His people. He asserted the very same things Peter asserted in 1 Peter 1:8-9: we don't actually physically see or hear from Christ. Also, David Wells quote has nothing to do with the incarnation; he is talking about the fact that so many people have abandoned the Biblical text. And no, Jesus did not leave His character at the Incarnation. If He did, then we are without hope.

Good conversation. For me this comes down to one of the ten commandments. "Do not take the LORD's name in vain."

Here is the trap I find myself falling into from time to time.

When I get too excited about the analogy of having a personal relationship with Jesus, I tend to think of myself more highly than I ought to. I think of Jesus as my best friend, so I assume he thinks of me as His best friend.

Then I make the big mistake. I mistake my own insights in God's Word as divine insights from Jesus Himself.

I start talking about my own interpretation of scriptures as if they were whispered in my ear by my good friend Jesus.

I say, "This morning Jesus taught me something new in Romans 8," and I take His name in vain. I use his name to add credibility to my own insights.

Of coures, every Christian does have a kind of relationship with Jesus. But if you take the analogy too far, it becomes absurd.

As my daughter said one night, "Daddy, that's just silly. Jesus can't talk back to us like a regular person. He isn't here anymore."

I stopped myself from preaching theology to my four-year-old because I realized she was right in a sense. At a certain point all our talk of personal relationships starts to seem like bull.

How do I know Jesus? I live my life for Him. I pray without ceasing. I read His Word daily. I do my work with excellence and integrity. I offer every moment of my ordinary life as worship to Him.

Or at least I ought to.

Professor Suk raises some interesting questions with this post. But even though the LANGUAGE of personal relationship may at times fit with secularity, I don't think the concept is foreign to the Scriptures. When one reads the Psalms (84 for example) you find language such as, "My soul yearns for the courts of the Lord. My heart and my flesh cry out for the living God." Surely that is a cry for relationship with God. Abraham is referred to as a "friend of God." Noah and Enoch walked with God. Paul wanted to know Christ more than anything else. Jesus said the greatest commandment is to "love the Lord your God."
While analogies comparing our relationship with God to relationships with fellow human beings are inadequate and sometimes inaccurate, I think the concept of a relationship with Jesus is sadly underemphasized among evangelicals at the expense of some sort of intellectual assent to the truth. As A.W. Tozer says we are loyal to principles instead of a person.

I agree that the concept is somewhat mystical and should not be emphasized at the expense of conversion, but I think it goes hand in hand with the doctrinal truths of being "in Christ" and "united with Christ." I speak as one who spent much of my life being "active" for Christ at the expense of a relationship with Christ. My life was transformed by a spiritual awakening that was spurred on by a deep hunger to know Jesus Christ in ways I had not known him before. Trust me, when one experiences a personal relationship with Christ, true conversion follows.

This is really interesting. I remember reading something about this topic somewhere that addressed the issue of the relational language. The question it raised was, did Jesus tell us to have a relationship with Him or to follow Him?

I can follow Him (i.e. continue in His way) even in the ABSENCE of His tangible presence. But I can't have a RELATIONSHIP with Him if I don't percieve Him as being there.

The relationship language betrays our selfish focus. It's about whether or not God is "present." What is interesting is that some of the people perhaps most qualified to speak of intimacy with God, those of the contemplative kind, also speak of the terrifying experience of the complete and utter loss of any tangible sense of His presence where they must rely only on faith.

How do you have relationship with someone who won't make themselves present to you? The relational language is secondary to the submissive language of, "I will follow..." We have lost sight of this and that is the real issue.

Perhaps the question isn't about a "personal relationship" but more about WHO the relationship is with. More often than not, I find western Christians have a very limited view of God. It's easy to talk about a personal relationship with a loving God, but His being loving is only one part of His being HOLY. God is intimately involved in my life, whether I recognize it at that moment or not. I have been predestined, I have been called, I have justified, and I have been glorified -Romans 8:28-30. This is personal. I did not initiate this relationship, nor can I maintain it without God. A Holy God makes me Holy, but He also requires some effort on my part to follow and, if I don't, there are consequences.

A God who is merely loving? Well, then why do my fellow believers suffer? Is He not able to stop the suffering? Why do I suffer? I guess I am not as close to HIm as I should be. Maybe if I work harder at this relationship things will get better.

How sad the believer whose faith is shaken because the Holiness of God is limited to only His love. He called us out of His Holiness. He will judge in His Holiness. He is worshiped because of His Holiness. His Holiness is also veiled in mystery. Perhaps it is time for the western church to re-evaluate how it is we view God.

Part of the problem with the personal relationship language is the lack of corporate identity that we have as the body of Christ. Our focus on the individual nature of salvation often fails to account for the corporate reality of that salvation. Its overemphasis also allows us much more easily to forgo unity in place of our individual desires. We do have a personal relationship with God, but we also have a corporate relationship with him as the Body of Christ.

A relationship is the level at which one person relates to another. Even the sinner has a relationship with God, albeit not a very enviable one. The relationship God wants His people to maintain with Him is a 'Right' relationship.

There is a level of relationship that we can have with God even though He (Himself) is not physically among us. After 25 years of discipleship, I know God today in a way I never did before. He is always with me. I feel His peace and reassurance whenever I choose to submit my fears and agendas to the knowledge of His Word and will. That peace and reassurance comes from the very real presence of a very real God. We are eternal spiritual beings well able to relate to spiritual things.

Even if God Himself appears to be physically absent from our midst, let's remember that you and I, His family and representatives, are very much present, and The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

God reveals Himself to us in many ways. Let's walk by faith, believe by faith, and receive by faith.

Let's step up to a new level of relating - a new level of understanding His complete will.

Strikes a nerve with me. Perhaps it isn't the terminology "personal relationship", but the way the term is used. So many describe this "relationship" as if God speaks directly to them, as if there was a tangible connection that makes every path clear, removes every obstacle and makes every hardship a breeze to endure.

I tent to think those implications lead to disillusionment for those who don't have such an experience, and I really doubt most who use that language really have that kind of experience either. But in our sales oriented culture, we tend to speak in glowing terms, emphasizing the positive and de-emphasizing the negative. What matters is that every one should "experience" Jesus. That becomes very individualistic and nebulous.

Jesus doesn't belong to me personally. He belongs to the whole church. Maybe our 'experience' of Jesus needs to be regrounded in doctrine, creed, and corporate life of the church of history. Then it doesn't all depend on my personal experience alone.

thanks for this article. I find myself split on it, because on the one hand I do worry that the emphasis on personal relationship reduces (and I use that word puposely) the mission and ministry of Jesus to nothing more than pampering to a consumerist individualism (not what Jesus was about and certainly not the cultural milleau in which he lived!) Jesus' constant reference to the 'Kingdom of God' would have carried clear societal meaning to his hearers - the society of God. In other words, the mission and ministry of Christ is nothing less than a transformation of the world - the building of a new order where God's values are the rule of the day. Salvation is not just about what we're saved from but what we're saved to - participation in this new society.

However, my fundamental belief in the missio dei keeps me anchored in the 'earthed' gospel (REAL good news) of God's intimate involvement in this world. The ascension of Christ does not indicate an absence of God as Jon Suk seems to suggest. It was followed by Pentecost which signified the exact opposite - a fuller and more intimate engagement of God in the world. For that reason, I am comfortable to speak of a real and dynamic relationship with God, through Jesus, by the powerful presence of his Spirit. BUT, and it's a big but, this 'relationship' does not end with me - it's not about a fluffy feel-good factor! This relationship compels me to be engaged with God's world too - to be in relationship with those around me living out the 'society' of God.

Incarnation was not only a one-off event (God becoming flesh for 33 years some 2000 years ago) but is a timeless truth - God is engaged and calls his Church to be the same.

just a few random thoughts to join the discussion!!!

Christ's words to his disciples before his betrayal in John chapter 14 speak to me of a deeply personal relationship that Christ had with his disciples. And in light of that relationship and the comfort he gives them about their future with him in Heaven and his call to loving obedience I feel the promise he leaves them with speaks of Christ's intent to continue that personal relationship through the agency of the Holy Spirit in the believer's life. To wit:

"All this I have spoken while still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.

Granted, the audience here consists of the original disciples. But if the Paraclete maintained the "personal" element in our relationship with God for the disciples, I see no exegetical reason why the same is not true for us, Christ's disciples today.

I agree that the phrase "personal relationship" has become an empty phrase for many (and not infrequently for myself), and I cringe whenever I hear the trite phrase, "Christianity isn't a religion, it's a relationship." But I am not convinced. Christ is immanent. His Spirit is an active agent in the world today. What barriers do you suppose God places between us and an immediate personal relationship with the one who dwells within?

Critique the empty cliches, and thoughtless apologies, yes. But don't reject the truth they once represented, please.

Regards,

Rich
BlogRodent

Overt and implied language of a personal relationship with God is throughout Scripture. Thanks to you who have cited some of those passages. In our culture of “if it is true, I could experience it” or “it is true because I believe it” one can easily miss the plain words of the Bible. No person's experience or belief determines truth.

Reading some of these comments, it seems some people reject or downplay what Scripture says because they personally cannot wrap their minds around it or because they do not have the same experience. We do not want to risk dismissing plain language of Scripture because of experience.

Christianity is a relationship. That is exactly what sets it apart from the rest. But it is not merely a subjective relationship, based upon my own thinking, feelings or experiences. There is objective truth that shapes this relationship. One personal way in which the God the Holy Spirit relates to us is to remind and to teach us the truth that Jesus set forth. When we fail to anchor ourselves to a firm conviction of the truthfulness of the Word of God we end up in a culture that takes this relationship and lowers it to a human definition. This is what we see in so much of western society.

Case in point: I hear people say, “I just can’t deal with God as a Father because my earthly father…” Does our experience with an earthly father change the truthfulness of God as a Father? Not at all, but when I use my experiences as a grid or filter for this relationship I am riddled with doubt about the veracity of this relationship and the character of the Father.

As for me hearing God speak or saying God spoke to me this morning in my time with him. This was compared to taking God’s name in vain, sort of giving God blame or credit for my own insights. When I poorly handle truth that is a real risk, but when I do as Paul instructed, “Rightly handle the truth,” I am actually being instructed by God the Holy Spirit and being spoken to by God. Questions for us bloggers? Do we read more about the Bible and culture than we read the Bible? Are we logging the hours it takes to become a student of the Word or are we students of others who interpret the Word? One trend of most of the blogs I read is that we do not cite the Word but we do cite some expert or author.

As many have commented before, this is not an "either/or" situation. The difference may boil down to semantics. We have a personal relationship with Christ, and we, the church, his bride, have a corporate relationship with Christ. I love my family and I also love my daughters individually. My problem with "personal relationship" is that we tend to use it lightly and preferentially, yet scripture in so many places speaks of that loving personal God, the one who calls us friend, the one who gathers us around him as a mother hen gathers her chicks. That is what I call "personal." I, too, have a problem with those who believe that God speaks to them personally -- telling them which book to buy, which outfit to wear, where to go to school, which church to attend, who to marry. God gently moves us along in the direction he wants us to go, but it's usually not audible or obvious to us except in retrospect.

As a believer who grew up in church, it is important for me to realize that the phrases we use may not be understood by all... I, for one, am very hesitant to use the phrase "God told me..." Not because I don't think it's valid, but because I want to make sure it is something God is trying to communicate to me ... It is true that if you call it a relationship with God that it isn't physically the same as a relationship with your wife... But there is a spiritual thing going on even in your relationship with your wife... A marriage isn't just a contract, its a spiritual covenant to remain dedicated to each other no matter what... Maybe that's a word we should recall... Covenant... It's antiquated, but it is clear... You make a promise to God, in a similar fashion that you do to others, like your wife... If you believe His Word, then you believe that God has committed Himself to loving and cherishing you... But He requires obedience... Just as your wife commits to loving and cherishing you, but she doesn't allow you to cheat on her... The relationship analogy is very valid, but we MUST explain what we mean to people who don't see it... It's a tragedy to me that people can be in the Church and around Church people, yet never have the most basic concepts explained in a way that makes sense... If someone doesn't believe, that's their issue... But if I don't communicate well, then it's mine...

I think Rich Tatum's comments are most on point.

Let me ask, did Jesus have a personal relationship with the Father while he was with us on planet Earth? Did he not say that he would not leave us as orphans, but send the Holy Spirit (aka: the Spirit of Christ)to be with us? Doesn't the Apostle Paul remind us that "...if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ (Rm 8:9)?

Is there anything more personal than having Christ's Spirit working within you?

Just listen to Wayne Watson's song or pick up a copy of Brother Lawrence's Practicing the Presence of God

and you can't help but hear personal relationship.

Peace to you all.

um, that would be

DEPECHE MODE

it's always good to know how to accurately spell the name of the band's lyrics you cite.

"But I can't have a RELATIONSHIP with Him if I don't perceive Him as being there."

I disagree. I can have a relationship with my husband even if he's on a secret military mission and I don't get to know where he is or even if he's alive at that moment.

Even if you have a problem with the word "relationship," the concept of personal connection and intimacy is thoroughly scriptural.

I also disagree with the idea that talking about personal relationship is somehow narcissistic. I can have intimacy with God without claiming him for myself.

Also, there are followers of Jesus all over the world who cannot belong to a tangible "body" - they can still know that they are part of the universal Body but to say that they have no relationship with God because it's not through the body is extremely short-sighted.

It does not need to be an all or nothing proposition, and I find articles such as this to be divisive and serve only to stir snap judgements based on whatever side of the issue you find yourself. I would be much more excited about an article demonstrating the scripturality of both sides and how both can come together to form a unified common view.

I think of the word "personal" as it describes a relationship to Christ in this way:

Jesus loves the world. That includes me, personally. How will I respond?

Jesus died to save the world. That includes me, personally. How will I respond?

Everyone should love Jesus. That includes me, personally. How will I do this?

Jesus has a plan for the world. That includes a plan for me, personally. How will I fulfill it?

Jesus answers prayer. And he answers mine, personally. How should I pray?

I've long thought that the "personal relationship with Jesus" grew out of the pietistic response to what were peceived as cold and formal state churches. In the American revival movement it led to a normative "emotional" sense of God's presence and forgiveness at conversion and in the continuing relationship. As time as gone on the language lends itself to the therapeutic and the extremely individualistic of God as provider for "my" needs.

And lost in that is the sense that Jesus called people to follow him, at great cost to themselves so that God's kingdom could grow and flourish.

I know this has been alluded to, but I believe that Paul's heart throb in Philippians 3 must be a longing for deeper personal relationship. The cry of "I want to know Christ" cannot be a desire for historical information regarding Jesus Christ, nor an expression of wistful hope to be with Christ one day "on the other side". To me, it is a rallying call of intense and intimate personal relationship in a real and everyday sense.

I just want to say 2 things:
1) Jesus WANTS to have a 'personal relationship' with us!! He said Himself "If you seek me, you will find me". We can have the PRIVILEGE of being in a relationship with the God of the Universe. That is not to be taken lightly - or even questioned, as this author seems to do. It is not necessary to question this!
2) This relationship can ONLY take place when we know God's Word. Apart from reading and study of His Word, we can't have that relationship... He speaks to us through his words. THAT is how we can have that relationship and KNOW HIM in whom we believe. He has admonished us to 'test the spirits' to see if they are from Him. The only way we can know if what we are 'feeling' (especially in answer to prayer) is true is to read and know the Word which is Jesus!

In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word ws God. Knowing the word and doing the word is relationship for me. Jesus said if you love me you will obey me, this is the first step. Since Jesus is the word, all in life will be decided my His words, how we act and react, how we live our everyday lives. His will or mine. When His word becomes the most important thing in our lives, this is relationship because He is the Word. Having the mind of Christ and doing and thinking and acting like Jesus, this is relationship. Loving Him with all our heart, mind, soul and strenght, this is relationship.

If you check carefully you will find that the people who promote the idea of a "personal relationship" with Jesus are also the one's who enjoy material blessings. It's interesting, but I have never heard any missionaries use this termenology. They simply obey God. The men and women of the Old and New Testament never used this type of language either. And I agree with the author; the aposltel Paul said it this way: Glatians 2:20I live by faith in the Son of God." Paul also said in Philippians 310 He wants to Know Christ and the "fellowship of his sufferings." You don't here that preached much today. The Christians I know who use this secualr language are into the money gospel. I am sorry, but that's just who is into it. Earl Banks.

I think that the problems Dr. Suk is decrying are not new. There have always been those who view God as a "cosmic vending machine" whose sole reason for existing is satisfying their wants.

And if we're honest with ouselves haven't we all had this attitude toward God at one time or another?

I don't think the terminology is so much the problem as the underlying thoughts and attitudes of heart.

When I find myself in a me-oriented attitude toward the Lord, his presence and any sort of personal relationship are absent. There are many scriptures that speak of distractions and things interfering with fellowship with God (read the parable of the sower - pay careful attention to the weeds).

I live in Canada - a country virtually drowning in the stench of great personal wealth and affluence. I have been a Christian for more than 25 years now, and have never been better off materially.

Yet I find myself in the pitiful condition of those in the Laodicean church (Rev 3:17) - pitiful, poor, blind and naked.

At its height, my personal relationship with Jesus through the Holy Spirit was marked by a peace and a joy beyond description. But at the same time by the world's standards, I was poor, powerless and in desperate straits.

The Lord calls us to self-denial, not self-indulgence. He calls us to come to him. He comes to us because had he not walked this world as a man and died for us, the gulf could never be crossed.

When our heart's cry is truly "not my will but your will be done" we will have a vibrant relationship with Jesus that is undeniably real. Let Christians everywhere attain to this. But God forbid that we teach and live a self-serving Christianity. If that's what we mean by "personal relationship" we are deluded and worse off than the unbeliever.

I suppose I could claim 27 years of pastoral experience or being fairly well read or having a solid orthodox theology. Instead I echo the words of John Newton who echoed the Jewish man of the gospels; "This one thing I know--I was blind but now I see."

I will surely be called simplistic. I know who I met on my Damascus Road (I-75) that night. In a moment of surrender I passed from darkness to light, from death to life. I am fully aware of the need to be careful about words. But what if we simply preach the gospel which is the power of God unto salvation? It's impossible to convince a man who has just been hit by a Mack truck that there's no such thing as a Mack truck. It's just as impossible to convince one who has been born again by the power of the Holy Spirit that God is not personally involved in his life.

Because I don't sense God's presence doesn't mean He is not present, or that no one else can sense His presence. Or that I shouldn't try to teach my children He is present.
Because I may not know God in a "personal" way doesn't mean God is unknowable by others. Because I don't fully understand the Trinity doesn't mean no one can understand the Trinity any more than I can.
Is it possible for God to be altogether "other" and transcendent and a friend who cares about your small problems? Can I be a friend of God? Is God great enough to care about the details of the lives of billions of people?
When all else seems to fail, who else can you cry out to? Doesn't your prayer of faith demand the presence (the face) of God? And doesn't your faith wait expectantly for his reply? That seems like a personal relationship.
Obeying the first part of the first commandment to love God with your whole heart is certainly an expectation of a personal relationship. I'd suggest you simply begin to try to practice loving God from your heart, and notice His response. Watch!, it might become a personal relationship.

He has identified Himself with the children and the sorrowing. Church please wake up.
Find Him where He is.
Please,feed the hungry and cloth the naked.

Professor Suk raises some interesting issues and many of the comments are equally interesting. I personally dislike the "personal relationship" declaration because I believe everyone has a "personal" relationship with God. For the believer it is an "intimate" relationship as their Prophet, Priest, and King. For the non-believer it is an "estranged" relationship of one who will one day judge the quick and the dead!

My two cents worth.

First. God talks to people. This fact is in the Bible. Moses, Joshua, the Isrealites, all the prophets, Jesus, Paul, and well, pretty much any person of relevance in the Bible, as well as some people not so relevant. God talks to people.

Second. Who are we to judge to whom God talks to? When David was cursed by the man along the road, his companions told David to rebuke the cursing man. However David did not. David's position on the situation was that David himself was in no position to tell the cursing man that what he was "prophesying" about was not from God. Perhaps God did want to curse David. It was not for David to judge. (could have been a warning perhaps?)

Third. About discerning what is of God and what is your own and what is of Satan. Jesus said that the sheep know the voice of the shepherd. I trust that Jesus was not lieing. As such, Christians (the Sheep) should know the voice of the Lord(Shepherd). If a christian says that God told them something, my bet is that he did.

And one last comment. 1 Samuel 3 is an interesting passage, which I believe deals with this somewhat. During that time, people did not hear the word of the Lord very often. As a result, people did not know what God sounded like. I think that we are currently in a state when God, for some reason or another, has stopped talking to us as a whole (though does speak to us individually). Because of this, members of the Church can no longer recognize God speaking to them.

Indeed, I see that having a Personal Relationship with God is both Biblical and necessary. Contrary to what Dr. Suk wrote, to shy away from this concept of relationship is to uphold secular values. I am superstitious (do you cringe at that? being a scientist, I definitely do...), and believe that God works in a miraculous and supernatural way (yesterday, today and forever). To deny that God has personal relationships with people is to deny God one of his most amazing attributes, namely, his love for us.

I think we intellectualise so much of Christianity today, Jesus calls us to a simple faith in a loving creator, The Father, a powerful enabler, The Holy Spirit, and a glorious Saviour and Redeemer, The Lord Jesus Christ. I know I have a personal relationship with the Trinity through my relationship with Jesus who is closer to me than any living person could be, who hears my every word and loves me just as I am.

Bob, you said it like it is! Listen up, God's people. Keep It SSimple~~to God be the glory!

I'm more concerned about the "personal" relationship that includes no one except "me and Jesus". A relationship that is so personal that it has no need for the family of faith that He died to establish is disfunctional. A spiritual union with the risen and living Lord unites us also with all others in communion with Him. (Ephesians 5: 25-32 I John 4: 19-21) That's about as personal, and at the same time as communal, as it gets, even though it may not involve a glass of wine or an e-mail (I Peter 1:8,9). We are not abstact to Him and neither should He be to us.

How interesting that one who has hours to spend nightly with "imaginary" TV friends and indulges in "American Idol(atry)" would then try to spend a few minutes with our Lord before slumberland and find that no one is there.

This is still a great conversation. I definitely believe a personal relationship with God is part of the way we worship Him. However, a Christian's connections to God are much bigger than a personal relationship.

Yes, He is our friend. He is a friend to all who need one. In fact, he is The Friend. He is also

The Creator
The King
The Potter
The Teacher
The Father
The Spirit
The Son
The Living Water
The Living Bread
The Light
The Life
The Way.

No matter how we choose to worship Him, He cannot be contained by our words, our ideas, or our desires.

He is able to be and do infinitely more than we ask or imagine according to the power that is at work within us.

To Him be the glory in the Church and on Out of Ur and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations and all Christian blogs in every post forever and ever! Amen.

Admittedly, I am a very busy lady and do not have the time to study every jot and tittle of your article or the comments...I just did a once over, but it's sort of like a quesiton "do you know so and so?" Well, you either do or you don't. I do have a very personal relationship with God, which began on May 27th, 1967, when I was Baptized in the Holy Spirit all by myself in my kitchen. I asked for it and He came. Of course, my God is the still the great Powerful, Almighty, Scriptural God of the Universe, but He is also my Lover and Shepherd, the God revealed in the Old Testmament over and over. How can he be both? Because Jesus by His Death on the cross, crossed the chasm that caused the separation.....I cannot explain it, I can only believe it and have experienced it. Praise be the The Father, Son and Spirit!!!

I don't believe that Professor Suk's point is that we only know God as a concept, or that He is somehow far off and removed from us.

It seems to me that the point he makes is simply that we American evangelicals are far too prone to transforming the biblical idea of connection to God and being His child into a sort of warm, fuzzy experience, which is primarily focused on making us feel good. There is no denying that we are children of the Living God. But sometimes, for whatever reason, we don't FEEL like his children. This the reality of life which is virtually never (in my 30+ yeas of experience in the church on both sides of the pastoral/laity divide) addressed from the pulpit, or in relationships in the churches I have been involved with. We are pilgrims and sojourners. That is the reality of our exerience, even as we belong to a Holy Father who cares deeply about us.

When the point of our salvation becomes making us feel good, then we have become far more like our culture, and far less like those who have been called out of this world and into a glorious Kingdom of light.

Jesus said in John 15:15..."but I have called you friends..." Does not friendship suggest a personal relationship?
The Beloved Apostle John writes in 1 John 3:1-3:
"Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God! therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. Beloved, now are we the sons of god, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure."
Does not sonship also suggest personal relationship?
And further, does not the hope of becoming like Jesus when we finally DO see Him suggest more and deeper intimacy promised to us as a part of that personal relationship?

I'll confess from the start that I did not read everyone's post, so I'm considering carefully whether to post or not. But as I consider, I realize it is more for my benefit to put words to my thoughts than anything else.

This is a great article. I think if we begin to nitpick it apart we have already and very clearly missed the whole point of the article - our faith though very personal is not about us or our comfort - it is about God's glory. God is a jealous God - He is jealous for His glory - not in a selfish humanistic way but because He is above all, He created everything, and besides, who are we that we can really understand who God is? Yes, as believers we are clearly indwelled by the Holy Spirit, there is clearly a personal aspect.

How many of us were outraged at this article not because it is not absolutely true but because we were forced to face our own selfishness and lack of action?

This is a great topic because we should be questioning what we hear and read... checking it with scripture. Some of what Professor Suk resonates with me... I found the recent contemporary song "I am a friend of God" to be slightly disturbing and I had a hard time singing the chorus over and over (though catchy) because I felt it didn't balance God's character sufficiently. I think others have spoken to this topic which essentially is God is not simply our friend, he is the creator, the Holy One, Saviour, etc.

The song bothered me so much I decided to look whether this was biblical or not -- In John 15:15:

I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends for everything that I have learned from my Father I have made known to you.

So I now no longer cringe at the song but I continue to add attributes of God during the chorus.

I think that Jesus is very real and while the language of personal relationship does trip up many people... I don't think it is irrelevant.

Thanks for your ministry

First of all, kudos to the girl that pointed out they spelled "depeche mode" wrong.

I noticed that someone mentioned the great work by Brother Lawrence. That was impressive.

Look, I know that people suffer. They suffer all over the world, but I think it's wrong for this author to build a theology of "non-relationship" around his jaded point of view.

To those of you that have not truly experienced God, that don't feel He speaks to you, I feel true sympathy and will literally be praying for you. God's voice is still and small, but it IS a voice. Quiet your doubting mind and try listening. You just might be amazed.

A number of the comments in this string of responses to Professor Suk mention his analysis of "Western" secularization as a major influence on evangelical theology and suggest that contemporary evangelicalism is at fault on this matter of "personal relationship with Jesus" because of its unwitting synthesis of Western culture and pure biblical theology.
However, I went back and reread several times the part of his article posted here and though I did find 'secular' and 'contemporary' and 'evangelical' often, I did not see the phenomenon characterized as particularly "Western." And that is a good thing, too, because his argument would fall apart rather quickly if he had -- where you hear testimonies about "personal relationship with Jesus" most often is with Chinese, Korean, Burmese, Vietnamese prisoners for their faith. One sweet old Chinese who had endured decades of torture and imprisonment for his faith, yet seemed cheerful and triumphant in spirit, when asked how he could stand the various tribulations he endured, simply began singing: "I come to the garden alone . . . and He walks with me and He talks with me, and He tells me I am his own; and the joy we share as we tarry there, no other has ever known." Despite my dubious take on that final line, I cannot remain unmoved by the solemn conviction of these holy martyrs that they experienced the real presence, the personal presence, the sweet and intimate presence, of the Savior and Lord to whose existence and reign their lives were testimony. (I do not mean to exclude westerners from those who can experience such intimacy; the history of the church is full of witnesses from every age and every culture who confirm the same experience.) Perhaps the "gift" of personal communion with the Lord somehow corresponds to a temporary lack of other means of knowing him. So, it's not that Personal is preferred to Theological, but where more objective and ecclesiastic means are not present (as in a Chinese prison cell), the abject need for the Lord to 'come near' becomes more acute. So He does.

You may also find a similar assertion by Charles Colson in 'Being The Body' in which he states that Christianity is more than individualism. "Me and my Jesus" has no place in Biblical theology or christian government.

Truth has a 'sound' to it for me, as much as logic, meaning, or the truth of faith. But what's that? As someone whose doubt is - alas - an integral part of his faith, I need the sound, the music there can't be lyrics to, the mysterious rhythm that has 'got me beat'. I have no personal relationship with a bespoke Jesus so Suk's article resounds for me - with truth. Yet, I have read of the "I and Thou" relationships of some mystics and feel awe for such a gift beyond ordinary faith. St Francis wasn't John of the Cross, Brother Sun is a long way from the Dark Night of the Soul and the rich 'soup' of the metaphysical seems as mystically rich to me as the soup astrophysicists like to talk about in explaining our corporeal existence. Explaining? Who can pretend to begin to understand God Creating when silence conveys what words only disturb? There's the rub. Chaos, confusion, harmony - can they really mean the same thing in the end? I can't make more sense than this without shutting up and sharing Jesus in silence - in all His forms - though it's great to hear what everyone says and Dr Suk's Jesus comes through loud and clear! Are we any the wiser from being given the speech that finishes babyhood - that constantly finds us speechless? In silence the Word - Love is inexplicable isn't it? 'I love you' says nothing compared with what we can't express ...but like Dr Suk we can but try and all ways, dark or lit up, lead to where faith, hope and love draw us.

Watchman Nee stated that he only wrote about what he personally experiened. I'll briefly do the same. I liked and disliked this essay.

To say that because God allowed David and others (I'm guessing all followers from all ages) to mess up is to say that God was not "with them" is not the message for, especially new, believers. My experience is this: God has tought me very valuable lessons and has allowed me to become fully discusted with my own behavior and poor choices. If I am directed like a puppet, then I can not make a choice to love Jesus. Those are the many moments of change in my life. For David to say at the end of his life that God is all that He claims to be means that the Grace (Jesus) part of His Personality is frontmost through all David's life, my life. I must admit I love Him more and more thinking of that grace.

What I like about this essay is that it brings to light what has frustrated me for years and what must frustrate many more Christians: Pastors and others giving false doctrine. A year into my Chistianity I admitted to my Pastor that I had issues with a particular part of my past that was very dificult to leave behind - most men in the church probably deal with it. He quickly blurted out that he has absolutely no problem in this area himself, not a chance, never has, never will. Shot me down and I felt that I was being told that there was a place that I would never reach - kind of how I felt about this "personal relationship with Jesus" thing being preached. The pulpit and office of Pastor must be meet with the purest of intentions and it was clear that was not the case in my experience.

There is no doubt we have a relationship with our maker and this cannot be compared with any other. I have a relationship with Father (yes, Daddy who would do anything for His children) Son (Savoir, Teacher, Example), and Holy Spirit (Guide, Helper, Convictor, etc...). How much more did the lost son love the father when he was welcomed back.

In conclusion, I enjoy critical thinking and with the numbers of Christians affected by The Holy Spirit, we can hash this thing out and learn too.

It's Personal Here is my heart and my life I give it LORD to YOU where would I go and what else would I do if I did not know YOU. Like the desert needs the rain, like the morning needs the sun and the oocean needs the streams I need YOU. I would have despaired unless I had believed that I would see the goodness of the LORD in the land of the living. Send down your power LORD release your glory LORD. Give us a passion LORD like never before Amen

A thought provoking article. The "personal relationship" paradigm has been something I have thought about on a number of occasions. I share Prof. Suk's concern that it may not be the right language to use to describe our relationship with God through Christ. It's an attempt to get across the point that a vital faith is a personal faith, as opposed to a group experience.

yes a personal relationship is two sided.iam satisfied in god/jesus and am hungry for more of him.He relates to me through his word,His spirit in my mind ,and in my circumstances.What ever terminology we use-God and i are in a relationship.

I trust that by diluting the value of or eliminating the existence of "a personal saving relationship with Jesus Christ" you are not revealing yourself as a "universalist" believing only in corporate salvation.

In Christ
Mike

I have had a personal relatinship with God since I was 20 years and one day a widower. I prayed to God and God answered me personally. God has continued to answer me, sometimes with unexpected and highly appropriate answers. Sometimes with unsolicited answers. Always I have prayed to God in Jesus' name. Jesus came to show us the way. Jesus left us a legacy to study in the New Testament. Jesus is there to help us, but not necessarily to be our direct contact. Ywhw, G_d, the Nameless One, is our direct contact. Jesus is our guide. Praise God in Jesus Name! To put Jesus before God is in my opinion, a blasphemy. Jesus never said to pray to Him. He said to pray to God in a certain manner. I pray the Lord's prayer each morning. It says it all. If I want a "kicker", I pray the 23rd Psalm. "The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want." A non-born-again disciple.

I won't go too deep into this subject for alot has been said. But to those who say that Jesus or God doesn't speak to them - may I suggest that when you pick up the Word of God and begin reading - who is speaking to you? Yep, Jesus and God! The word of God was God breathed.

We need to keep in mind who the Almighty God is and why He sent His Son to die for us. Reverence is not a word we hear often, but we have to be in awe of God. To revere Him.

My two cents...

Sometimes too much head knowledge can be a hinderance to our relationship with "OUR FATHER." (emhasis on OUR FATHER)
No wonder Jesus said,"Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven."

Jesus was crucified because he claimed God was his Father. The Jewish leaders did not like it at all. This is the gospel that Jesus preached. I do not know any other good news. I do however beleive there has been a misuse of the word relationship to be that of between lovers - our relationship with God is genetic i.e. factual, and not imaginary. A child is genetically related to its parents. How we develop our "relationship" with the father depends on individuals - some like being cuddled others like being given responsibility.

Easy Jesus. Easy Grace.

All fawe. No Awe.

Excellent article, I must say! Jesus is in Heaven and not on earth. He hasn't been on terra firma since his ascension. There hasn't been a prophet of G-D since John the baptist. The Holy Spirit teaches about Jesus and not the other way around. One must have a personal relationship with everybody's Jesus. After all He is Lord of all, or not Lord at all.

Thanks so much for that article! I have discovered in myself that I often am confused about the "god" in my head. I see it all around me, people claiming that God is telling them to do something when clearly, its often a symptom of some kind of mental anguish that they are going through. Your article removes God from our wishy washy emotions, and reminds me that He is a rock, and that we will never totally grasp Him until we meet Him. Thanks so much.

I understand something of what the article is getting at, but I just can't agree with it all the way.

"we need to recover the Psalmist’s language of lament because it fairly represents how we ought to feel about Jesus’ absence until he comes again to make all things new."

What about the language of Jesus present with his people? Us corporately and individually as living temples? The spirit making Christ ever present to us, the new creation not just inaugurated but beginning to break through. Ok, so there's still more to come, but he's not absent!

Andrea Bianchi's charming introduction to John Suk's piece was so disarming and deft that it belied the astonished and troubling realities of Suk's essay. Congratulations to CT for having the courage to engage on this subject, despite the anger and denial it may stimulate from some quarters.

At the same time, we must allow, somehow, for those of us who truly need the sense and assurance of their own personal, intimate Jesus, their own paraclete, and who want to "come to the garden alone, while the dew is still on the roses."

Many of us, I think, acknowledge the validity of Suk's theological conclusions while still yearning for the emotional comfort of a comforter. It's a difficult problem.

Professor Suk;
Yes the language of personal relationship is fuzzy, but it is the nature of relationship to be unclear, evolving and challenging. God created us for relationship. "Let us make humankind in our image..." Then "...male and female he created them..." The natural consequence of which is marriage, a relationship with is used throughout the Bible to talk about God's relationship with us.
It is my contention that we humans will not change for the better except in the context of relationship. We change the way we behave because we care about someone else and are willing to suffer on their account. A God who is only transcendant, a God who does not meet us in our lives is a God who can have no effect on us. Thus a God does not call us to suffer the pain of the refining fire. Our relationship with God sustains us, sanctifies us, and sends us into the world to show that God is with us, with us not to protect and shelter us from the world, but with us to love and change the world

Certainly, a "personal relationship" with the eternal unique Person which consists of good vibrations is vanity. However, our encounters with this Person (mediated through whatever event/community/communication/etc. He chooses), are transforming. We are changed into His likeness... His humility, authority, heart of service, holiness, power effects change in me.

I don't think this is a basic problem in the West. Our real problem is a sterile, technical, scientific approach to relationship with God;as if following Christ was a lifelong course in systematic theology.

I am edified by this. Thank you all.

Coming from a tradition that emphasised the holiness of God, and living through the "Jesus movement of the '60's, I can appreciate this article. There was a period where the concept of God as "Buddy" did as much injustice as God hidden in a box and accessible only to clergy.

I agree with previous posters that there is a biblical basis for relationship, but I also agee that the peculariaties of my relational experiences cannot adequately describe God. The same God who regularly spoke with Moses in relationship spent significant time training Moses in the character of His nature.

While as a human, I need the connection of a relationship (including love, acceptance and affirmation), as a part of creation, I need the security and boundaries of his preexistant holiness. As with Moses, God reveals Himself relationally, in the context of my needs, but also sovereignly as the creator and judge of the world.

It's all about faith. Faith without works are dead. I don't have to see him to have a relationship. I can feel his presence and see the things he does and I know he loves me because he went to the cross for you and me.

With all due respect, stop theologizing it all up there in your mind. It's down in your heart that it all happens, through the Holy Spirit. True, "personal relationship" is never mentioned, and so is the word "Trinity" as one already commented.
But Paul is unequivocal about the fellowship of the Holy Spirit and bombards with the concept all the churches all over the NT. Why? Because it is at the heart of the Gospel: God choosing a people of His own and covenanting with it, then blessing it with the indwelling Presence of the Holy Spirit in each individual's heart. God desires His Spirit to live in us, the same way He did in Jesus. We have the Spirit of God that makes us cry "Abba, Father". This is the fulness of the Christian life that is made available for us. If you are not experiencing it, you are simply missing out a lot on life, I am sorry to say. Tonight as I have relaxed I have felt the Presence of God very close to me, the very Holy Spirit comforting me and spending time with me. And thus, I can say I have a personal relationship with Jesus. It is not always concrete as a natural elationship in the flesh, but it is surely supernatural.

2 Corinthians 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen.

"It sounds to me like Dr. Suk is, sadly, lacking a personal relationship with Jesus!" Posted by: Don in Phoenix at March 24, 2006 11:56 PM

I strongly disagree. I have come to believe that one of the most distasteful aspects of modern evangelicalism is the propensity to label everyone who doesn't share every jot and tittle of your personal belief system, i.e., your relationship with Jesus, is somehow not really a Christian. Attack the scriptural or logical bases of the argument, not the person!

Christianity does not begin or end with me, the individual, but with God and his Son and their Kingdom.

Seems like we are always discussing nonessentials to please or conform to dogma. A personal relationship is implied in the basic concept of the whole Bible: He came and saved us so we could be reunited as a family...if being part of a family is not a personal relationship, then what is?
As for many people doubting that some hear the voice of God, it gives me the impression of envy transformed in disbelief. If God talked to all of us confusion would be the result...He speaks to whom He chooses, not to all those who complain they can`t hear Him. It seems to me we are diluting the fire of the Spirit that should be the guideline for all of us by holding bizantyne and confusing scholarly discussions about inconsequential matters to titillate our intellect. This is a matter of faith, not interpretation, and if you have a personal relationship, an institutional relationship, a religious relationship or any relationship with Jesus, your salvation will depend only in your faith, not on the type of relationship according to our human wisdom.
I believe in Jesus and have a personal relationship with Him through all the people I share with or help, and I believe He can still talk to some of us, even if some others don`t hear His voice. I have seen too many miracles, so I can`t agree with the professor on the importance of classifying my relationship with Jesus...I think there are more important things to do and worry about.

I have read the numerous comments posted since Professor Suks thoughts on his own personal relationship with Christ. From my own observations in re-reading his letter several times is seeing someone who seems to be struggling with their own internal questioning stance on God with several comments that he made about people around him who are suffering or hurting etc. So I am somewhat confused that his topic of debate started one way and made several side trips towards his curious conclusion. I wonder why those comments were included concerning hurting or suffering people?
Can someone actually talk or hear from God, yes I believe so and I feel that scripture points to this conclusion. Now maybe the bigger question is what was the difference between those lives that are mentioned in scripture and our own? What are we lacking inside if we are indwelled with the Holy Spirit? Is our belief in God and Christ only in our minds or also found in our hearts?

OK, OK, If you can't hug Jesus, then hug someone he loves.

In today society where science is making it mark on the world it seems more and more we are losing our sight on who God and Jesus really are. When one say they have a personal relationship with God or Jesus the word personal is just that. Whats personal is their belief in Christ. Look around today everyone is trying to make what they believe to be right and true, and what they don't understand about religion, should be the same in everyone else mind. All it takes is weeds to start to spread. Good seeds will grow weeds around them too,we just have to know how to weed them out.

I believe we look at faith differently in America as opposed to places where our faith can cost us our life! I also know people who are super spiritual, for lack of a better description, who seem to have a direct line to God! Who talk to and hear back from, in audible words according to them, God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit! And they say it’s because of their close personal relationship with God and imply that if the same doesn’t happen to others, it’s because they do not have this personal relationship! I don’t buy that at all! I lost my son in a car accident almost four years ago and never, as far as a relationship is concerned, has he been so silent! I know another devout Christian who has relayed the same experience! My mother put her arms around me and talked to me as well as many others but Jesus, in that respect did not!! But what I did do is TRUST with all my heart that God took care of my son!!! And will do the same for me!!! I do think this believing and trusting is the more important part of my relationship with God and not the expectation that God will someday tell me things like what color of car to buy as others have said to me. This, at least in some part is the point I think John Sulk is trying to make.

I find this whole topic fascinating. I am a member of the United Church of Christ, & so I am quite liberal/progressive in my theology. The topic of a "personal relationship with Jesus" has long interested me. As with many posters here, I have never been spoken to by God the Creator or Christ the Child directly, but I can't discount the experiences of others. I remain skeptical. To one poster-- did you mean "immanent" or "imminent" in your comments about the presence of God? A Freudian slip?

I have a personal relationship with the Lord and He is my first love. It is precisely because I do not spend time with Jerry, Elaine, Kramer, Randy, Paula, Simon and Jay but choose to spend more time with Him that I hear His voice speaking to me through scripture, through circumstances, through other people. I want to know Him and I am willing to lose my life for His sake and I am, and as scripture says I am finding it in dying to self. I have experienced HIS joy and His peace and His comfort in the midst of extreme difficulties many times. Repentance is the key which includes repentance of the spirit of the world and total submission to Him...I am living it...How Sweet He is.

I have been reading these interesting insights regarding a "personal relationship with Jesus". I myself have used that term often. Over the years, I have heard many invitations from pastors and other Godly people be presented in many different and unique ways, but they all point to the same thing - following Jesus. We can debate about what term to use, but I think the important thing is not what we call it, but whether we experience it or not.

God is wanting us to follow Him and He sent His son to model that for us. Now, through the Holy Spirit, we have access to God. I am disappointed that some of my peers can even write the words "God doesn't speak to me". Wow! I wouldn't want to live in a world where that happens. And I am thankful that I don't! No, He is not sitting across from me directing me on life issues, but He certainly speaks to me through His word, His church, and His creation. Because I answered the door when He knocked (REV. 3:20), I do have fellowship (a personal relationship) with Him. Regardless of the jargon that is used to communicate, I am still going to do all I can to tell others how much that decision has changed my life! It has caused me to believe in Him, which means "to trust,with an implication that our actions change as a result of that decision". And that is in the Bible! Once I made the decision to trust in Him and believe in Him and follow Him, my life has never been the same! Isn't that the kind of relationship Jesus was wanting with us in the first place?

I highly recommend "Hearing God" by Dallas Willard. I have had frustrations regarding hearing God myself, but this book has helped me to get glimpses of how I CAN have a closer relationship with him.

Good comments and thought-provoking reading. I've wondered recently about a focus on "personal" salvation, with regards to cultures and societies that are more group oriented. I've been taught all my life that "God has no grandchildren" but then I wonder what it means in Acts 16 when Luke writes that the Philippian jailer was saved, and his house (KJV, which I had to memorize as a child). There are many examples today from group oriented cultures where the father in the family is saved and the rest of the family follows suit. Some of us would say a person's not saved unless he/she has a personal encounter with God, but I wonder if that's true. Especially when you see families where this has taken place, and it's obvious that they are following Jesus.

I don't know how this all works. I do know that when I read my Bible I sense God's work in my heart and when I pray and cry out to him he answers my prayers, and all that leads me to "feel" like I have a relationship with him. Practicing his presence in my life on a day-to-day basis teaches me more about his character and what he wants to develop in me. But I too struggle with saying, "God told me..."

Reflecting on Steve's comments about song lyrics being scriptural; I cannot bring myself to sing the last line of Above all Powers. It is truly illustrates this "personal-all-about-ME theology:" "Like a rose, trampled on the ground, you took the fall, and thought of ME above all."

Sorry, but I don't find that in scripture. Maybe someone out there can help me out.

I think that it all comes down to what you think constitutes a relationship. Not everyone is going to hear a physical booming voice from above. If anything I believe that it comes in the most smalles t of moments. When an idea seems to come out of no-where or a moment of eureeka. Jesus at times speaks to our spirits, and while it may not always be a loud it is there.

I would love to be able to sit with Jesus and have a cup of coffee and in times hardest moments, that need is even stronger. But God in his infinte wisdom has given us one another to be at times his voice. It can be a kind word from a friend of the warm embrace of a mother when you're hurting. I think some people limit a personal relationship with Jesus as one dimensional thing. God speaks in everything even in the hurt.

Sometimes it's just a matter of opening ones eyes to different forms of communiations.

I just had to comment about this article. I hope that what I say isn't repeated as I didn't take the time to read all of the other comments but I do have to say that Professor Suks argument makes no sense to me. You're right the words personal relationship are not used in the Bible but the words Friend of Sinners is. If he is our friend what more is there to imply but a relationship? I think that we can become imbalanced and be so focused on a relationship with Jesus that we forget the power of Him as God but I also think that we can be so focused on His power as God that we ignore the personal side of Jesus. Jesus was personal in His death for us on the cross. He was personal with His disciples, Mary and Martha, with his resurrection of Lazerus. God is also Almighty and All-Powerful and can choose to do anything in judgement of our sins. He is to be feared but also to be loved. I have had many relationship that are great friendships with people I have met online. To say that it isn't a relationship because I can have a glass of wine with the ones that live across the country is absurd. God does communicate with us through His Word, through a pastor and through others. I feel His presence when I pray and when I worship. He is in my thoughts when I hide GOd's Word in my heart and put those words into action. Do I have a relationship with GOd? Yes I do. It may not be physical but it is relational and to think that a relationship has to be that is absurd.

The title of this article attracted me instantly because I've recently been dealing with the fact that many Christians seem to worship a Jesus that they've invented in their minds and not the Jesus of scripture (myself included in that analysis). I had a conversation with my mother last night. She struggles with having that "personal relationship" with Jesus. She is saved, but she doesn't feel close to God. I try to explain to her how easy it is. You just have to get to know him like you would a person---but you have to read the Word. Truthfully, I know how hard it is to function in this personal relationship with God. In fact, it's almost undefinable...so undefinable that we have to reduce it to phrases like "Jesus lives in my heart" just so we can wrap our minds around it. God took something as elusive as sin, pinned it down and conquered it with the cross and through Jesus' blood. He made salvation simple (but not effortless)for us because he knew we'd never get it on our own. How have we taken something God intended to, in essence, simplify for us and again made it so complicated. I agree with the others who point out plenty of evidence that God does desire a personal relationship with us and that there are plenty of people who have had that personal relationship with God. But it is not at all like the other relationships we have with people who we can see and touch. I don't think that the disciples and others who walked with Jesus were the only ones meant to have a "personal relationship" with Jesus just because he was right there in front of them. It is more difficult for us now, yes, but not as impossible as we think. We get frustrated because its not instant all of the time like turning on the t.v. or a genie coming out of a magic lamp when we rub it...but God is real and He does speak to His people. If we take the personal relationship out of our interaction with God, then all that is left is religion. Is that enough? If so, then why did Jesus spend his life preaching against it?
Thank you, Professor Suk, for making me think even harder on this subject.

In response to Gary who wrote, "I lost my son in a car accident almost four years ago and never, as far as a relationship is concerned, has he been so silent! I know another devout Christian who has relayed the same experience! My mother put her arms around me and talked to me as well as many others but Jesus, in that respect did not!!" Posted by: Gary at March 29, 2006 08:27 AM

Gary, my heart goes out to you and your family. I have to believe the heart of Jesus does, too. Thanks for reminding us to trust, even when our senses and experiences encourage us to doubt.

In Jeremiah 31:34, God speaking of the new covenant says, "they will all KNOW Me." This word "know" which is the Hebrew word "yada" means more than simply an intellectual knowledge, it means a personal, intimate knowledge. This is the same word used to describe the relationship between a husband and wife (Genesis 4:1).
Jesus Himself uses similar language to define eternal life in John 17:3 "This is eternal life that they may KNOW you the only true God and Jesus Christ ..." What could Jesus be talking about there? Could it be a relationship?
To say or even imply that "personal relationship" is not Biblical or just secular is simply a lie. Our relationship to and with Jesus must go beyond belief because as James said, "the demons also believe."

I just read in the Amplified Bible in John 14,23:Jesus answered, If a person really loves me, he will keep my word - obey my teaching; and my Father will love him, and We will come to him and make our home with him.
How much more personal can you get?

I am a 70 year-old Grandma of 10. I have been through many "stages" or "growth plateaus" of the Christian life, beginning at age 8. I suspect I have had most of the same questions others have had about "knowing Jesus". My commitment to him grew from weak to questioning to very strong. Today, you cannot shake my firm belief that the Holy Spirit of Christ lives in me. We have become "One" as Jesus prayed in John 17. GOD cannot communicate to us through His Holy Spirit if we have unconfessed sin in our lives, therefore, according to Scripture, I "capture every thought for Jesus Christ". I don't want ANYTHING to block or hamper the very PERSONAL relationship I have with Jesus. I talk to HIM and listen to HIM. Because HE is SPIRIT inside me, I "hear" with my spirit. JESUS is bodily in Heaven, but HE and GOD, the FATHER, and the HOLY SPIRIT are all ONE, so when I talk to One of them, they all hear. THEY speak the same thing because THEY are ONE GOD. My personal relationship began when I repented of my sin. JESUS said unless you repent, you cannot see the Kingdom of GOD. My observation is that the people who do not have a personal relationship with the ONE TRUE GOD, JESUS being HIS name, have not truly repented and asked JESUS to take over the controls of their lives. HE died to pay MY sin debt. HE will not, in fact, HE cannot, be in the presence of sin, so we must be in constant communion with HIM (not a priest-pastor) to pray for ongoing forgiveness and direction for our lives. I live in peace and joy every day and look for that day when I will enter the gates of HEAVEN!I TOTALLY believe that!

Recently, I witnessed a close friend's testimony whereby she described, in her estimation, a near death experience during hospital visit. Just before losing consciousness she remembers simply calling out to the Lord for help. The medical staff later revealed that she muttered unintelligibly during the time she was being physically revived. My friend has since shared insights of being over whelmed with God's peace beyond all comprehension; realizing God has fearfully and wonderfully architected the wonder of the human body..And it was made "very good". But above all else, the most striking insight she received through this experience is the reverential fear of knowing the Lord. She's resigned in heart that "all is well with my soul" particularly in regards to what the Lord sovereignly does with her health. To the best of her ability, she will always strive to ask "What, Lord am I to learn, or do?"...rather then ask "why?”

Perhaps this personal encounter my friend experienced has lead to a deeper understanding of what it means to walk faithfully before a holy and awesome God. Perhaps by walking [with Him]through a shadowy death's valley, comes a heighten sensitivity to a God that's too holy to even look upon sin, yet, as a blood-purchased recipient of His grace, He bids us to "Come". After all, the meekest man in the Old Testament, spoke to the Great I AM, and was answered through thunder on a fiery mountain that shake violently. This same Moses, afterwards had the confidence in beseeching the Lord to, "shew me thy Gory".

Herein, I believe lies the balance in knowing a personal savior, not figuratively, but experientially, whether during the inception of the new birth, or during times of trouble. Conversely, these personal experiences enable us to agree with the Psalmist to “Do homage to the Son, lest He become angry, and you perish in the way”.

I consider myself and Evangelical Christian, although I would have to qualify it by saying that I am a pastor in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America -- and we Lutherans tend to define "evangelical" in a slightly different way from others. Y

et, I wasn't always Lutheran. I grew up Presbyterian, and went to a Methodist college and seminary. I say this because from the very start, when I became a Christian at 18, this idea of having a "personal relationship " with Jesus has confounded me.

What does it mean to have a "personal" relationship with Jesus? What does it mean to have a "personal" relationship with someone at school or work, or with one's spouse or kids? The answer to these questions, I think, will be nearly as varied as there are people.

The biblical language of being "in [union] with Christ" or his "disciple/follower" (or, even "friend" [John 15:13-16]) is more flexible than "personal relationship" -- which can mean anything.

It would be interesting to see the results of a poll of American Evangelicals that asks them to define the term "personal relationship with Jesus".

I have "heard" God speaking clearly in short but impactful sentences. Until that happened, I was suspicious of people who claimed to have heard God.

I now have no doubt at all that Christians do have a relationship with God, and the nature of that relationship is personal. We do not all relate to God in the same way. We cannot restrict God's prerogative in how He chooses to run each relationship.

Nevertheless, Prof. Suk raised an important warning. Having a personal relationship with God should not be allowed to breed "over-familiarization" which might cause us to lose the awe and reverence that is due to Him.

I think Mr Suk does not have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ (but might want to find HIM. I totally disagree with the column. The Bible does not specifacally say to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ he is right about that. The Bible does state in many different books that He is our friend and He will NEVER leave us or forsake us, to me that is very personal. Jesus, to me, is very personal to everyone. He did die for ALL of us not just a few of us but ALL. I do have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and am thankful for that. I would agree with one comment that someone wrote in you say it is hard to have the personal relationship because you haven't seen then at the end of your column you wrote that we just need to have faith. Please, you need to reread how the Bible describes faith. Read Hebrews 11:1 it says: "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for & certain of what we do not see" (this is the NIV version).

This is a good topic. Never think about it. Here is my opinion.

We adopted a new lingo in these changing culture. Culture changes so our lingo and people & kids is using the (current) lingo in this culture. It’s like technology (we use to have black & white TV now we have coloured), we need to adopt new gadget out there.

We use different lingo like “the relationship with Jesus” or "faith in God" or "etc" for the benefit of our non-Christian (friends, family & acquitance) and new believer in order for them to understand Jesus. Is like communicating to little children, you can’t use lots of big words to children and expect them to understand everything. Same idea.

Thank you for taking time reading - May GOD BLESS YOU

A rose by any other name ...

Why do people get so hung up on words/meanings.

If my relationship with Jesus is personalized with special talk times (I talk to him all day long as if he is right here with me ... which I believe he is), complain to him when I am angry about something, sing to him when I am happy or just wanting to praise him, and pray to him during a devotional time before bed - and I often try to listen to anything he might want to tell me as I quiet myself before I go to sleep. If that is not a "personal" relationship "I'll eat your hat!"

My main concern with using the phrase "a personal relationship with Jesus" is that it seems to convey the message of just me and Jesus alone. I think the Bible teaches a relationship in the context of community, i.e. the church. There are too many Christians who think that as long as they belive in Jesus, that's good enough. They don't need the church. Yes, we do have a personal walk with Jesus, but when we walk alongside others who also are walking with Him, that is when we discover more about the character of God.
This dialogue is a good example of walking together with Jesus. We learn from each other and grow in our relationships.

Wow..it amazes me to read such unbelief. One of the reasons why Jesus couldn't do mighty works in his home town was because of unbelief. Jesus is in every believer in the person of the Holy Ghost. Jesus said to His disciples that it would be expedient for Him to go Home to the Father so He can send the Holy Ghost. If you have the indwelling of the Holy Ghost...you have your personal relationship. Let's stand up brothers and sisters and cast out unbelief from the intellectual mind. We weren't created to walk with pure intellect...when we try to walk with pure intellect, we disregard the need for our Lord. What scripture says is what scripture says...let's not try to add things or interpret it to what we want it to say. May all glory and praises go to El Elyon