The problem is that Relationshipists (see "What Is a Relationship?" and its links) cannot live their own religion -- obviously: if it's not in the Bible it's because God did not intend for it to be taught to Christians, because the Bible tells us how God intended for Christians (and all people) to live. But if you ask this kind of question of a Relationshipistic pastor, most often he will become (literally) unspeakably angry, usually with catastrophic results. That's what I mean when I say they cannot live it. They do not want to be "in relationship" with anybody who would even consider the notion that the Bible does not teach it. In other words, they cannot unconditionally affirm me when I ask hard questions like that. I am perfectly willing to believe the Bible does teach it, chapter and verse please. But they cannot answer it, the same as the Darwinists cannot answer my question: "What in your own peer-reviewed research supports descent from a common ancestor over the alternative?" (see my essay "Biological Evolution") In both cases it's "Religion" (believing what you know ain't so), and in both cases they get exceedingly angry. I am willing to do that to the Darwinists, but I will not fight a pastor in his own church.
Here are my questions, plus some discussion how I might try to answer
them, if somebody were to ask them of me:
1.If the concept is so important, why
does the word "relationship" not occur in my Bible, not even the modern
translations? (My answer)
2. What is the meaning of the word "relationship" when it is used in church? (My answer)
3. The Bible teaches Moral Absolutes = obligations
binding on all persons everywhere and in every circumstance without exception,
not even exceptiong God Himself. Is "relationship" a Moral Absolute, and
why or why not? (My answer)
Modern Bible translators -- every one of them a member in a Relationshipistic church -- know what the church staff and members understand by the word "relationship" and the Bible teaches no such thing. The Bible does teach that come things are connected (but it's incidental to the context, not a command. For example, "if any person be in Christ..." then other things are also true. The Bible is full of kinships, but there are other words (like "father" and "sister" and "family") to express those ideas. The Bible does occasionally mention sex, but the original text delicately uses the word "knew" for that, and the translators often preserve the euphemism.
I do not know of any place in the Bible that exemplifies or teaches unconditional affirmation. The closest it comes is when the Apostle Paul writes in his letters, calling his readers "loved by God," but he is writing to churches who are presumed to be committed Christians in compliance with the condition stated by Jesus, "If you obey [my] commands, then ... the Father will love you."
2. My dictionary gives two basic meanings for the word "relationship":
1. Connection, andThe American public has a third meaning, more recent than my dictionary:2. Kinship.
3. Regular sex with a single person to whom one is not married.I saw this sense of the word in one of the Transformer movies, where the Bad Guys were also transformers, and one of them appeared to be a female trying to seduce the hero. He said "No, I'm in a [pause for emphasis] relationship." Everybody in the audience knew he was banging his girlfriend, and her alone (monogamy without the benefit of marriage). When I was in grad school, I regularly attended a Friday evening Bible study in my professor's home, and he invited any of his students to come. One fellow came for a while, and regularly threw up these questions against the faith of the majority. So I asked him, "If we answer this question, will you become a Christian?" He hesitated, then said "No. I'm in this relationship." Everybody there knew he was having regular sex with his girlfriend, and he knew that was not permitted of Christians, and he loved the sex more than he loved God.
I have never heard it defined, but in all cases when the word "relationship" is used by a woman or in church, it appears to be equivalent to:
4. Unconditional affirmation.Without using the word "relationship" the pastor of a church where I was a member said it this way: "Never criticize."
A woman member of the church where I am in attendance at this time was telling me why she dumped a previous husband: "The relationship was over." She obviously did not mean either dictionary sense because she was still connected to him by a marriage certificate, and was therefore still (in a legal sense) his "kinship." She did not say anything about sex (I didn't ask), but another woman continued to have sex with her husband after she decided to dump him, but before she moved out.
People who use the word "relationship" in this sense often describe other behavior as consistent with it:
a. (Unearned) trust, which affirms uncnditionally (that is, without any evidence) the other person's deserving that trust.b. Vulnerability, which is another way of expressing that you trust that person not to use the vulnerability to cause harm.
c. (Unearned) praise, even (or especially) if it is not true.
3. A Moral Absolute is an obligation binding on all persons everywhere and in every circumstance without exception, not even for God. I have never met nor heard of anyone who does not believe that some things are Moral Absolutes, at least binding on everybody else (people often exempt themselves, but they have a conflict of interest). Nobody goes into a store to buy a $2 item, and pays for it with a $5 bill and not expect $3 in change. 2+3=5 is a Moral Absolute that everybody believes in, at least for every shopkeeper in a store they enter. Otherwise commerce would break down. Truth is a Moral Absolute -- even God Himself cannot lie. Justice is a Moral Absolute -- Abraham won the debate with God on that point. The Golden Rule is a Moral Absolute that even most (American) atheists will admit to -- most of the time, at least when it obligates another person, and sometimes when describing their own virtue.
If "relationship" was a Moral Absolute, then all people everywhere would be obligated to be in relationship (pick any definition), even if the other person ddoes not reciprocate. Yet all four definitions of "relationship" above are reciprocal or not at all. Therefore God (nor anybody else) cannot require "relationship" of any two persons unless both agree to it, which is a conditional requirement, not (by definition) a Moral Absolute. Note that you can always speak the Truth even if everybody else is lying. You can always give everyone no less than what they deserve (Justice) even if they do not. You can always treat somebody as you would want to be treated in the same circumstance -- which gives you and out in the case of injustice, that is the treatment must be equitable -- which makes the Golden Rule into a Moral Absolute.
The Bible does teach some things that are not Moral Absolutes, for example the temple sacrificial system is contingent on the availability of a Temple and priests and is obligatory only for Jews before Christ, and the care of animals (and people) in need is exempted from the Sabbath law.
The most important thing is that the Bible never teaches anything that Jesus or God would not or cannot do. God tells the Truth, and is Just. God does for people what He would want done to Himself if He were a mortal. But Jesus (and God, both) often criticize people to their face. That is the exact opposite of Relationshipism.
Tom Pittman
Rev. 2026 March 21