Is the language of a "personal relationship with Jesus" Biblical?

A post at the Out of Ur blog argues that this particular phrase is an example of Christians using misleading and non-Biblical language to describe their beliefs, and that doing so only creates confusion about the Bible's teachings:

Evangelicals generally insist that “the meaning and purpose of life is to have a personal relationship with Jesus.” .... But we also confess that Jesus is not physically present on earth. So how does one have a personal relationship with someone you can’t talk to, share a glass of wine with, or even email? We need to do some fundamental reflection on the whole notion of having a “personal relationship” with Jesus Christ. While, on the one hand, I respect the longing for intimacy with God that these words reflect, they also concern me because they betray a creeping sort of secularization of our language about God.

Note that the author (John Suk of the Asian Theological Seminary in Manila) isn't denying the evangelical belief that humans are uniquely loved and offered salvation through Christ; rather, he's taking issue our tendency to take spiritual truths and wrap them up with culture-specific language that can subtly shape the way we understand those truths. He suggests that we stick with phrases like "I have faith in Jesus," or "I believe in Jesus" to avoid any misinterpretation or confusion.

What do you think? Is Suk onto something? If so, can you think of other examples of "questionable phrases" we use to describe Biblical concepts? Or is Suk just playing with nitpicky semantics?