Is a relationship with God delusional?

People often lack words when attempting to communicate objective meaning. 

I believe that a Christian’s genuine relationship with God can sometimes lack the words or answers that are required to do it justice, but that does not disqualify the objectivity of a meaningful Christian faith.

There is definitely a dimension to Christian faith that can never be completely comprehended in this lifetime, because “his understanding is beyond measure” (Ps. 147:5). As God also revealed to Isaiah, “as the heavens are higher than the earth so are … my thoughts than your thoughts” (Is. 55:9). Paul also highlighted some unknowns: “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him” (1 Cor. 2:9).

Get Our Latest News for FREE

Subscribe to get daily/weekly email with the top stories (plus special offers!) from The Christian Post. Be the first to know.

The objectivity of Christian faith is not conditional upon answering all questions pertaining to God. How could a believer ever communicate the manner in which God created the constant laws of physics and mathematics? Should a believer be expected to explain how God perfectly fine-tuned the laws of gravity for human existence? Can believers be expected to know how the complexity of a fully formed human being exits the birth canal? “Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high; I cannot attain it” (Ps. 139:6). This incomprehensibility does not imply that a personal relationship with God lacks objective meaning, or is untrustworthy.

Some skeptics often point to postmodern literary theory that idealizes language as restricted to cultural and social contexts. It thus theorizes that the literary reading of a text cannot necessarily provide interpretive meaning that is trustworthy. Interpretations then become largely subjective with no real correlation to objective truth, but note that a literary theory should not highlight the supposed subjective interpretations of others while assuming that its approach remains objective. As Nancy Pearcey aptly commented in Finding Truth:

In practice, the only way deconstructionists can function is to tacitly exempt themselves from the critique they apply to everyone else. They presume to stand above the fray, with unique insight to deconstruct everyone else’s statements as products of underlying interests and power struggles, while treating their own writings as immune to the process … ^[1]

I emphasize that an honest attempt to interpret a text shouldn’t ignore the necessity of a sympathetic reading. In other words, what did the writer intend for the reader to understand? A literary theory should exercise intellectual honesty by not approaching a text unsympathetically. William Lane Craig contributes an excellent point in his classic book, Reasonable Faith:

The idea that we live in a postmodern culture is a myth. In fact, a postmodern culture is an impossibility; it would be utterly unlivable. Nobody is a postmodernist when it comes to reading the labels on a medicine bottle versus a box of rat poison. If you’ve got a headache, you’d better believe that texts have objective meaning! People are not relativistic when it comes to matters of science, engineering, and technology; rather, they’re relativistic and pluralistic in matters of religion and ethics.^[2]

For our own good, we should indeed read medicinal labels sympathetically.

Objective meaning does exist. But when it comes to the biblical views of sin, repentance, and justification by faith, texts are made unnecessarily confusing. Intellectual gymnastics and language games are proffered in order to undermine the validity of Christian faith. The Bible reveals to humankind the history of redemption and teaches the path back to its maker. It’s incumbent upon each truly open-minded person to explore the agelessness of Christian faith for oneself. I always say, what is the point of having your own mind if you are going to allow others to make up your mind for you?

“Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son” (Heb. 1:1). These were real people in real geographical places who were chronologically documented. Many did not cross paths with one another, and yet their messaging remained generationally consistent. Then came Paul, who unpacked and explained: “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed; behold, the new has come” (2 Cor. 5:17). How can a sympathetic reading not get what he meant? Not listening to it, or not wanting to believe what He meant, or refusing to acknowledge its contemporary applicability, these are totally different matters.

The objectivity of Christian faith is to make peace with God and to grow into the human beings that He intended. Countless believers throughout the ages have and are experiencing this objective, with intellectual and spiritual rigor. Even so-called “gotcha” questions do not disqualify Christian faith. For example, “Where did God come from”? is asked often. There are solid answers, but even if a Christian were to answer, “I don’t know,” that would still not undermine one’s faith. A finite mind grappling with God can expect not to know everything about Him. What was God doing before He created our Universe? I don’t know.

Neither do I know how to put into words that do justice to the joy and peace of knowing God. As Peter said, “Though you do not now see him, you believe in him and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible… “ (1 Pet. 1:8). Paul also said similarly, “And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus” (Philip. 4:7). These fruits of the Spirit continue to characterize a genuine Christian faith, even though believers cannot find words to express them.

A meaningful Christian faith that finds its objectivity in what God has scripturally revealed for humankind is available. My challenge is for one to read the Scriptures sympathetically, and to first acknowledge what the writers intended for us to understand before critiquing. Is that asking too much?

1. (David C. Cook: Colorado Springs, 2015), 202.

2. Third ed. (Crossway Books: Wheaton, 2008), 18.