Earlier in the year, I was at a conference listening to John Wyatt, the well-known Christian medical ethicist. He spoke about the importance of friendship, and I bought and read his fascinating book Transforming Friendship. Ed Shaw was also there, and had been very influenced by the book, so I asked him some questions about both the book and the subject of friendship.
IP: Why do you think the issue of friendship, especially between men, has become such an issue in our culture?
ES: Back in 2000 Robert Putnam wrote his seminal work on modern American life: Bowling Alone. Some of his most quoted words are these:
The single most common finding from a half a century’s research on the correlates of life satisfaction, not only in the United States but around the world is that happiness is best predicted by the breadth and depth of one’s social connections.
Making and keeping friends is essential to human well-being and yet we seem to be become more and more disconnected from others. If Putnam could diagnose this as a major problem back in 2000, how much more evidence would he find in 2025?! He was writing well before smart phones, working from home, on-line gaming and the rest had succeeded in isolating people (especially men) even more: an ever-increasing number of people now spend an ever-increasing amount of their time staring at a screen. Although, in theory, we are more connected than ever before, the reality is that we feel more disconnected than previous generations who used to speak on the phone rather than text, go into work with other people, and were entertained more outside their homes.
This has led to a mental health crisis that is being widely reported. In the UK The Samaritans report that middle-aged men are more likely to die by suicide than any other group. Pastorally I have spoken to many parents who’s teenage and twenty-something sons are rarely seen outside their bedrooms and whose social networks and skills are almost non-existent.
IP: John Wyatt’s book, Transforming Friendship, describes the remarkable, non-hierarchical, friendships that John Stott nurtured with John Wyatt and many other young men whilst at All Souls. Were you surprised to read about these, as I was? How does this change our view of his leadership?
ES: I think we have become too used to “platform speakers” living up to that description – being distant figures that we only see a few feet above contradiction and inaccessible to ordinary church members. I’ve even been to a US Christian conference where the speakers all sat in a roped off area at the front – with bouncers to protect them! I have also met a few and found far too many to have time only for others as important as them.
In contrast, you have John Stott intentionally building friendships with young people (men and women) in his church family at All Souls – and all around the world on his travels. He gave them his time, he wrote to them, he prayed for them, he helped fund their ministries, and he never drew a moment’s attention to this part of his life in any book or interview. As he grew older his thinking and writing was informed by their views and insights – he watched films and discussed books with them, learnt from their younger perspectives.
I guess it’s easy for those of us who have only ever seen pictures of Stott in a suit, or heard his upper-class RP accent, to presume he was a rather staid and remote figure. Or we can look at the scale of his writing and travels and presume that he was, like many church leaders today, too busy to have time and energy to give to friendships. But it turns out, he was busy transforming lives with the gift of his attention and love.
IP: Wyatt traces the factors that have made us suspicious of friendship, including the sexualisation of relationships, alongside consumerism and individualism. Do you see these at work in your context and in our culture?
ES: Wyatt rightly names our contemporary “hermeneutic of suspicion” especially around men with power. Recently Evangelicalism in the UK has been rocked by scandals in which male Christian leaders have cruelly used their positions to use and abuse younger men physically, sexually, emotionally and spiritually. This can lead us to question any relationship in which there is a disparity in age or power. Wyatt talks of reviewing his decades long friendship with John Stott to see if there was even a hint of him misusing his position but, along with other young friends of Stott, he found him to be above reproach. He talks of Stott’s clear awareness of the dangers of younger people putting too much trust in his advice and refusing to tell them what to do with their lives.
In Stott you have a wonderful example of someone not using God’s gift of friendship in his own self-interest, seeking to serve and learn from, his younger friends. This helpfully pushes back at contemporary trends of consumerism in friendship, and individualism in life, too. It’s, simply put, Christ-like and an inspiration.
I found it especially inspiring at a cultural moment when the hermeneutic of suspicion makes it feel like a wise and self-protective move for a single, same sex attracted Christian leader like me not to invest in friendships with a younger generation. What will people think if they see me meeting up with young men, giving them my time and attention? Stott calls my selfishness out by giving me a positive, replicable model of how it can be done in ways that protect me and others from what has gone badly wrong in other contexts.
IP: In his exploration of biblical friendship, I was struck by the way that relationships in scripture often cross divides of culture and power, with people (like David and Jonathan) nurturing strong bonds of friendship across hierarchical divides. What insight does that offer to us about friendships today?
ES: That it can be done! That friends don’t need to be equal in power, age, wealth, intellect, status to be good friends. Wyatt’s best example of this is the friendship that God himself offer us in Jesus. We are not his equal in any way and yet, incredibly, he calls us his friends.
A Christian’s friendship circle should not be like anyone else’s – largely made up of people like them. Instead, our friendship groups, like Jesus’, should be made up of people from loads of different backgrounds to us, unlikely friends, but all united by and in Jesus.
IP: On p 88, Wyatt quotes Stott as challenging the idea that, especially in old age ‘I do not want to be a burden to anyone’. ‘We are all designed to be a burden to others!’ How important do you think this idea is in our thinking about friendships?
ES: It’s crucial but painful! I hate expressing my need of anyone. I am used to being self-sufficient, I am a leader who is often driven by other people’s need of me. I seek to carry others’ burdens; I do not want to be one.
I find some of the last words that Stott wrote such a corrective to me:
Christ himself takes on the dignity of dependence. He is born a baby, totally dependent on the care of his mother. He needs to be fed, he needs his bottom to be wiped, he needs to be propped up when he rolls over. And yet he never loses his divine dignity. And, at the end, on the cross, he again becomes totally dependent, limbs pierced and stretched, unable to move. So in the person of Christ we learn that dependence does not, cannot, deprive a person of their dignity, of their supreme worth. And if dependence was appropriate for the God of the universe, it is certainly appropriate for us.
What incredibly challenging words from Stott as he was becoming more dependent on others! One of the most moving parts of Wyatt’s book is him telling of Stott’s tears of frustration as he struggled with the physical limitations of old age – the above insight was hard won.
IP: Wyatt looks at ‘Paul-Timothy’ relationships, and the importance of inter-generational friendship to Stott. Why is this important in our current context?
ES: Just the other week my friend Pete Dray was providing some input for the staff team of Living Out on Gen Z – where they’re coming from, how we can better connect with them. Apparently one of the things they are looking for in life is input and wisdom from older generations – people to be like Paul to Timothy, John Stott to John Wyatt. If we want the church in the UK to have a future, those of us who are older leaders should be looking to build two-way friendships with those who are younger. This would be a win-win situation for both friends – insight into the future of the church for the senior friend, support in building the church of the future for the junior friend.
Further encouragement comes from some words of author James K.A. Smith that Wyatt helpfully quotes:
If you want to transcend time, build friendships across generations. Though you can’t stand outside your own season, you can hear from those who’ve lived through your season. In my experience this is one of the great gifts of multigenerational friendships. Friendship in this respect is akin to time travel…if we can relinquish the myth of utter singularity, then listening to those generations ahead of us is a way of learning from our future. Granted it is the nature of youth to spurn such gifts. But when we are humbled, friendship across the generations becomes a lifeline, an almost sacramental means of transcending the purview of our now as God gives us an outside glimpse of our moment. But the gifts traverse time both ways. Older generations attentively listening to those younger avail themselves of different ears to hear what’s whispering or shouting now.
IP: There is a sobering chapter on when friendships go wrong, particularly through abuse of power. What do we need to put in place to ensure that our friendships remain healthy?
ES: It is a sadly necessary chapter, but I love how Wyatt does not shrink from addressing the questions we all have after recent scandals. Interestingly and convincingly, he argues that a big part of what has gone wrong with some prominent church leaders is that they didn’t have any real friends themselves. Another incredibly helpful quotation in Wyatt’s book is this observation from Roman Catholic priest Henri Nouwen:
One thing is clear to me: the temptation of power is greatest when intimacy is a threat. Much Christian leadership is exercised by people who do not know how to develop healthy, intimate relationships and have opted for power and control instead. Many Christian empire-builders have been people unable to give and receive love.
Turns out that what we most need to ensure that our friendships remain healthy is to have real friends who we love, and who love us.
IP: Why is friendship such a transforming reality?
ES: Because it’s a God-given gift that we were designed to need and give. A human being who is part of a network of deep friendships with a range of different people will thrive in life – a human being who isn’t, won’t. We were created to enjoy relational intimacy. God’s famous observation: “It is not good for the man to be alone.” (Genesis 2:18a) has been proved to be true time and time again. But in recent generations we have often been mistaken in thinking God’s answer is just the relational intimacy of marriage – rather than a whole network of deep and committed relationships with a wider circle of friends. That is something that John Stott clearly had in place and the good it did him and others is clear from the lasting fruit of his ministry and the lack of any scandal attached to him.
Wonderfully we are currently benefitting from a bit of a gold rush when it comes to books on friendship to encourage and equip us. Wyatt’s is just one. I have recently enjoyed Phil Knox’s The Best of Friends and reviewed it here. My own silver-plated contribution comes out in June: The Intimacy Deficit: Fully Enjoying God, Yourself, Others & Creation.
IP: Thanks for your insights here Ed—and I look forward to reading your new book. Perhaps we ought to have another conversation when it comes out!
Ed Shaw is Pastor of Emmanuel City Centre Church, Bristol, UK and Ministry Director at Living Out. He has written widely, authoring numerous blogs and articles as well as the bestselling books, The Plausibility Problem and Purposeful Sexuality and forthcoming The Intimacy Deficit. Ed loves family and friends, church and city, gin and tonic, music and books.
Amen.
Friendship is the answer to so much.
The best things in life (friendship and wide open spaces) are free.
Great theme, great author, great mentor.
Yes. I agree with everything Ed Shaw says. John Stott used his gift of singleness well — but in my experience few married men pursue that path.
When you are young your lives can be intertwined with so many different people but then it seems a ‘drawbridge’ goes up around many married homes. I think it is possibly related to the modern idea that you find everything you need in your marriage partner — the ‘one flesh’ union of Genesis 2:24 is thought to be a union of souls — but in its original context it simply meant ‘one family’.
And I think it is a particularly male problem. Women seem to engage socially together for its own sake more easily than men who seem to be happier in an activity-based friendship.
It’s cultural, not hard-wired. Men used to be notorious for going down the pub together to talk without their womenfolk after work.
What is the evidence that ‘one flesh’ in Genesis 2:24 was taken by its original readership as ‘one family’? It is very hard to square with the strong word ‘dabaq’ for their being united, which I like to render as “stick to” with a deliberate double meaning.
Anton,
“What is the evidence that ‘one flesh’ in Genesis 2:24 was taken by its original readership as ‘one family’? It is very hard to square with the strong word ‘dabaq’ for their being united, which I like to render as “stick to” with a deliberate double meaning.”
For me the issue is this comment you made at the beginning. I suspect that Malagasy culture and other African cultures in general are closer to an understanding of ancient Israel than any culture in the post NT reception history of Western Europe.
A point made by David Instone-Brewer is that the destruction of Jerusalem was so comprehensive that the early church in its Graeco-Roman world had little concept of Hebrew culture.
I do not wish to get myself into trouble (yet again) — but all the evidence from the social and literary context, and the OT narrative itself, is that the ‘one flesh union’ of Genesis 2:24 was considered to be a new family unit formed by a conditional contract — a spiritual, mystical, ‘soul’ union, or even being ‘in love’, was not in the mix (this is not to deny that such experiences might come about).
Clearly many (most?) on this blog have a different epistemology and would be happy to read back into the understanding of Genesis 2:24 our European reception history. I respect that. But it is a different exegetical method to my own.
How much that impacts the thesis of the article in question I am not sure. But I think from my own experience many consider that my life as a married man over the last 30 years (of the 51 years to date) has been ‘unusual’. And in a strange way I have some envy of John Stott.
Your argument about Graeco-Roman culture cuts both ways, Colin. You ought to remember that ancient Israel was meant to be different from the gentiles.
I asked you for evidence and, with all respect – for you have responded at length and courteously – you have not offered any. ‘Dabaq’ means in effect glued together, and Genesis 2:24 states unambiguously that man and wife should have their own living space distinct from their parents’. Do you agree that that is what the Hebrew means? I’m not inclined to get into a long discussion before knowing your answer to that question, and what you take to be the difference between the nuclear and the extended family (for we need to define our terms).
Anton
You have asked here and below for evidence.
My published PhD on this is available as a free download from the University of Chester and if you look at chapters 4 and 5 I deal with both the ANE and OT understanding of marriage.
Hamer, Colin. “Marital Imagery in the Bible.” No pages. Cited 2015. Online: https://chesterrep.openrepository.com/handle/10034/607240.
Anton,
I do realise for many on this blog such a study – which took 5 years of post-graduate study will be of no interest, and perhaps not to yourself either. I understand. But I offer what I have.
Before I read it Colin, please would you answer the two specific questions I asked, both of which are capable of brief answers:
1. Genesis 2:24 states that man and wife should have their own living space distinct from their parents’. Do you agree that that is what the Hebrew means?
2. What do you take to be the difference between the nuclear and the extended family?
I would suggest that it is something of a viscious circle. Friendship is diminished because of the sexual revolution, so one’s romantic relationship becomes the only place for intimacy. Then this emphasis further diminishes friendship.
Perhaps we should also talk about intimacy within families, and by that I mean not the “nuclear family”, which is something of a Western abberation.
David,
“Perhaps we should also talk about intimacy within families, and by that I mean not the “nuclear family”, which is something of a Western abberation.”
Yes, for any who have travelled outside of Western culture that is abundantly clear.
Nonetheless that Western nuclear family understanding becomes a biblical hermeneutic for most when considering Scripture teaching on the subject.
But I am not sure how much it is an issue in male friendship — I just put it out there.
But there is something special about a close male bond.
If I can speak anecdotally, I have had a very good friend for 30 years and have travelled extensively with him in the USA, Africa, and Europe and we have spent many hours together discussing a wide range of topics, but mainly theology.
We could not be more different — he lived in a northern working-class town in a council house (with 6 children!) and was a keen follower of football and a staunch Labour Party supporter.
He died 18 months ago, and it is clear his loss is irreplaceable. It was sort of a Jonathan and David thing but in our modern nuclear family world I think people were puzzled by it. I think they thought we should have spent more time with our wives. When he stayed with me in my villa in France on more than one occasion people asked outright if we were gay.
Impoverished, impoverished people (and impoverished, corrupted culture) who asked you that.
On a side point (the phrase ‘nuclear family’):
In my experience, undamaged people and cultures are in favour of the nuclear family (insofar as they need to conceptualise such a strange idea at all), but therefore even more in favour of the extended family.
Whereas the sick west takes perverse pleasure in pointing out that the nuclear family (which was actually no-one’s no.1 option in the first place, albeit a very good and default thing, and which no-one had even hitherto mentioned) is not the only option, meaning that (by their ‘logic’) all kinds of artificial family structures are actually the same thing as the extended family, because after all they both fall into the category non-nuclear.
When we have recovered from that breathtaking non sequitur, we then soberly consider that none of the artificial family structures can happen without violence to some party (e.g. kicking out a poor spouse, a fate literally worse than death in their eyes), and wherever there is violence at the root of any set up, that will likely repeat itself. It would likely repeat itself anyway, but all the more so because it is being affirmed as a basis rather than seen as wrong.
Of course, the argument in favour of the artificial structures (an argument that had to be hastily devised after the event, given that the event was not rational) is that types of family are many. So:
(a) produce even one person who denies that;
(b) produce even one person who can give evidence that they are all (all the billions of them) of equal value (but if they are not, that negates the original point);
(c) produce one person who, given (a) and (b) can argue convincingly that the original point was not a diversionary tactic;
(d) produce one person who can give a reason behind the diversionary tactic other than that those who voiced it are literally being devil’s advocate;
(e) produce one person who can give a good reason for anyone being devil’s advocate. There is none, and this is a serious spiritual matter.
This structure of dishonest argument is not unique to the topic of nuclear family. It is also the same structure used in Synod to say ‘As certain details of marriage have changed over the years, that means that we can select any of the million possible changes that could be made – including very central changes forsooth – and make them.’. This was Miranda Threlfall-Holmes’s ‘argument’.
On another personal note the Malagasy missionary woman (Rosina) we have supported for 30 years revisited us in the UK and wanted to go and see the family she had stayed with out of term time when she was studying in the UK at All Nations Christian College.
They told me the first time Rosina stayed with them, on Christmas Day, they went together to see the husband’s mother in a nursing home but on their return home Rosina was inconsolable.
Eventually Rosina explained that she could not understand that the mother was clearly not well and yet living in this separate place just half a mile from them — she had never seen anything like it before.
On another occasion in Antananarivo, the capital of Madagascar, I was due to meet a young Malagasy Christian, an employee of the Banque Nationale de Paris — who sent a bank chauffer driven car to collect me. She pointed out there was no pension scheme even though it was a French employer, and when I asked what she would do when retirement came, she looked at me a bit puzzled and said — go back to my village family of course.
Would someone please define the nuclear family ad extended family before this discussion goes any further? God means man and wife to live together in a separate space from their parents according to Genesis 2:24.
But are the parent[s] supposed to live in a separate place from their children once the children have to be, though not in loco parentis, certainly primary carers?
I thought this was about friendship not minimal/nuclear family
Hi Steve,
I think the issue arose because the point was made John Stott was not married. And then the question was, if we are believe every relational need we should expect to get from our spouse — as often seems to be the understanding in modern culture — the thought of developing deep meaningful relationships outside of marriage might seem unusual to some.
And that has been my experience. Fortunately, my wife has been more than happy for me to have multiple friendships. Make of that what you will!
As I understand it the fundamental concept of discipleship in Jesus’ day was basically relational; with the responsibility for fostering the relationship resting mainly on the discipler. A sort of caring, mentoring, friendship model. The above example featuring John Stott seems to fit this pattern very well. Did Jesus actually mean ” Go and build friendships, Go and mentor and care for others”. Very different from some modern attitudes to discipling, putting all the onus on the disciple, all about learning, about being disciplined. What if Jesus was thinking more along the lines of building friendships, rather than putting people on so-called discipleship training courses.
Does that feed directly back into Ian’s insights?
Is the Church called to be deeply and profoundly relational whatever else it does?
Hi Frank,
“Is the Church called to be deeply and profoundly relational whatever else it does?”
I would argue an emphatic yes. Why did God create Adam? Surely it was for a relationship.
And although we are told that Eden was a probationary works contract which Adam failed and was punished by death (something that N. T. Wright in my view rightly ridicules) — no such teaching is found in Eden narrative. It is pure Augustinianism.
Instead, we see that the Eden narrative is laden with marital imagery — the precise pre-echo of God’s relationship with Israel — which despite some seeing as a suzerain treaty (a sort of Mafia extortion contract) — is actually a marital relationship.
So, I would argue Adam was exiled from Eden as an act of love (as incidentally does Chrysostom, not that I would normally appeal to the church fathers) — to avoid a continuing existence for Adam like the fallen elohim (Jude 1:6) — who have no access to the cross (Hebrews 2:16).
1. While it was touched on in the article are friends largely someone you can get something from or give something to? Is it reciprocal, balanced.
2 David F Wells is another who spoke well and warmly of Stott’s influence on him as a young man.
3 Bowling Alone was picked up by some public sectors as boost for community work separating out ” bonding” social capital from ‘bridging’ social capital to facilitate and promote community work. As part of my then job in the NHS I attended a lecture by the author. While this may have ticked corporate boxes the terminology may or may not include ‘ friendship’ within community settings.
4 It seems that CS Lewis and the Inklings were high on the bonding social capital scale, but not so much in respect of ‘bridging’.
5. Friendship varies over the years with time and place, with age, interests, careers and social mobility.
6 As an atheist I had more friendships, up to mid-life, but friendship withered on the vine, so to speak with the onset of clinical depression when acquaintance became true supportive friends and friends for whom I was best man at their weddings like morning mist vanished. That continued through a heart by-pass a handful of years later followed up by a stroke five or so years afterwards.
7. I was deeply humbled, by one friend who stuck by when he phoned out of the blue to say he had terminal cancer, one of the first to be told.
8. But there may be surprise times when it is made friendship made known publicly. A retired URC minister with denemtia, last year when asked by hospital staff when I accompanied him, who I was, a relative? No, a very good friend. I had no idea.
9 A friend who was ordained as Methodist, as part of training was cautioned against making friendships in church. Arms- length relationships were what was required.
10. Age and ill health bring impediments to friendships in church where there is such a huge age range.
11. But the best friend, through all this my wife of 46 years. All hunky- dory glory? Hardly.
12. Jesus as friend and brother. How, when and why? No longer God’s enemy.
Shocked? Awed? Humbled?
Just now, having been Whatts
Appd for prayer.
Friendship is being asked and asking for prayer.
I post this here because the distinction between a nuclear and extended family has been mentioned on several threads.
It seems in ancient Israel it was not uncommon for a groom to take his bride back to his father’s house where they would live in an extended family. The concept in Genesis 2:24 of “leaving your father and mother” it seems was relational rather than spatial/geographic.
We see this come through in UK culture in that our next of kin on marriage is our spouse.
And we can see the power of the marital imagery in John 14, e.g., in John 14:2, Jesus says “In my Father’s house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you?”
Another, what we might see as a ‘quirky’ thing about African culture, is that every young married man I have spoken to has paid a bride price for his wife — this is an ANE tradition found in ancient Israel (I would argue fulfilled on the cross when Jesus paid the bride price for the church). And what is more, in Malagasy the word is ‘mohar’ — the exact same word as in the Hebrew Bible.
Where did that come from?
In case I have still not answered Anton’s legitimate question about the distinction between a nuclear and extended family – if you ask somebody in the UK to tell you about their family they would most probably speak about their spouse and 2.4 children. If you ask that question of somebody in Africa, you would need to expect a very lengthy answer. I think it would be the same in ancient Israel.
In case I have still not answered Anton’s legitimate question about the distinction between a nuclear and extended family – if you ask somebody in the UK to tell you about their family they would most probably speak about their spouse and 2.4 children.
If you ask that question of somebody in Africa, you would need to expect a lengthy answer. To give a specific example, in December, when I was in last in Madagascar, a Malagasy friend of mine was admitted to hospital and night and day there were never fewer than 8 or 10 people in the hospital room – all members of his wider family who fed, washed him, and generally cared for him.
I think it would be the same in ancient Israel.
Well spotted Steve.
Friendship.
Let’s see how that works out.
God divorced Israel . Then Jesus paid the bride price.
Is that how ANE scholarship works in discussing the topic? Any scholarship?
As a Methodist minister, I want to follow up what Geoff said in his first post at point #9, as I think a discussion of this deserves its own thread. I certainly heard the ‘Don’t be friends with members of your churches’ advice, and to some extent I understand it. I have been friends/friendly with some church members, but there has always been a limit as to how much and how openly I could share with them. There would regularly be issues troubling me that affected others in the congregation. Thus, there would be issues of pastoral confidentiality, conflicts of interest, dual relationships, and so on.
Hence, I have found most of my good friends during over thirty years of ministry outside the Methodist church, and sometimes outside the church full stop. They have included: an ecumenical group of youth workers, a monthly meeting of evangelical-charismatic ministers, two local vicars, and members of the camera club I belong to.
In the light of my own experiences, I would be intrigued to know how John Stott managed deep friendships with members of his own congregation. Perhaps I shall have to buy John Wyatt’s book!
Hi Dave,
Yes these are interesting observations – certainly in management positions you usually need to be careful not to get too close to the staff.
But I’m not sure that compares to being a minister – Jesus seemed to be extraordinarily close to at least some of his disciples?
Dave, it may be that by 1970, with the appointment of Michael Baughen, John Stott had stepped aside from the day-to-day pastoral responsibilities of the Rector of All Souls to concentrate on his teaching and travelling ministry. He would continue to preach and lead services but the leadership and pastoral care of the church were in other hands. One senior curate, for example, became ‘Director of Pastoral Care’. Stott became ‘Rector Emeritus’ in due time. I can also say as one who attended All Souls in the 1980s that Stott’s preaching always had a certain impersonal quality about it, generally avoiding reference to his own life or those he knew.
At the same time, he became ‘Uncle John’ (and was so called) by the group of young professionals he befriended and socialised with, and this was his primary means of engaging with the world of the younger generation (something that most of us experience through our children as they grow up and become young adults).
Hello Dave,
An example may show how fraught relationships within church may be for minister and jealousies.
My wife and I were friends with the friend and his wife, and socialised together before he was ordained. I was part of his support group, throughout his training. Our friendship continued throughout his various placements.
On one occasion we all met 30-40 miles from his circuit for coffee and cake. A member of his church was there who proceed to lambast my friend for such extravagance, when many of his church wouldn’t be able to afford it. I corrected the man as the invitation was ours at our expense, and expense that he himself could afford!
hold on Geoff, coffee and cake is an extravagance?! It’s a necessity for life!
Dave, just to note that the young men like John Wyatt that John Stott befriended were indeed members of the congregation at All Souls.
I used to know John Wyatt back then when he was beginning in paediatrics. It was interesting to see him being interviewed not so long ago about medical ethics by Konstantin Kisin on ‘Triggernometry’.
Not just men. Women as well.
Anton,
It seems difficult to reply to your post of 8:13 pm which does not seem to have picked up my answer at 7:05 pm about the difference between nuclear and extended families.
Also, I have separately answered your specific question on Genesis 2:24 elsewhere:
“ It seems in ancient Israel it was not uncommon for a groom to take his bride back to his father’s house where they would live in an extended family. The concept in Genesis 2:24 of ‘leaving your father and mother’ it seems was relational rather than spatial/geographic.”
I hope that is helpful.
The point of all this is the concept of a nuclear family couple with their children I have speculated can be a barrier to forming relationships outside of that unit. I have repeatedly been challenged as I have travelled in the UK and abroad with friends why I am not accompanied by my wife.
I have been told “you are no longer two, but one.”
John Stott was free from this. And from the legitimate responsibilities of a family man – as was Paul. Stott would never be challenged as I was. And he described that freedom as a gift.
And the nuclear family “the two have become a self-contained unit” concept I suggest would not be common in ancient Israel or in NT times. And I see the OT as fundamental to understanding the NT.
But I get the impression on this blog that there are relatively few OT specialists.
And I realise that some of my comments on the text of Scripture are outside our Western Protestant orthodoxy which I believe has not taken sufficient account of the Jewish nature of the NT.
But my faith has never been in the church or its traditions so I do not experience any anxiety when I notice Scripture and tradition are not synonymous in their teaching.
“But I get the impression on this blog that there are relatively few OT specialists.”
Why? Because I do not think there is a single OT related comment I have made on any Psephizo blog that is not based on the view of at least one recognised and published evangelical OT scholar.
Yet my comments are so often seen to be controversial.
PS There is plenty on the particular tendency of the English to nuclear families, even in mediaeval times, in the excellent works of the (secular) scholar Alan Macfarlane.
Colin,
God intended each family in ancient Israel to have its own plot of land. That can only mean extended family. So parents and their married sons would obviously live very close to each other. But I suggest that healthy family dynamics require man and wife to have not just their own bedroom but their own living quarters. Why? Because Paul makes clear that a married man needs to be in charge of his own nuclear family – his wife (Ephesians 5) and his children. If in every interaction with them he runs the risk of being contradicted by his own parents and his siblings then he will be undermined and a healthy family will not develop.
The challenge is to reconcile the strength of the marital bond in Genesis 2:24, which appears to imply nuclear family, with the land legislation in the Pentateuch, which appears to imply extended family. It can be done by having separate buildings in close proximity, which I suggest is what God had in mind. I do not agree with your exegesis of Genesis 2:24 that ‘leave his father and mother’ means leaving them emotionally. There is no point in writing the sentence if that is all it means, is there?
Ah yes. The topic is friendship.
How does this ANE scriptural theory work out, fit.
God divorced Israel. Then Christ paid th bride price.
1. Friends always ‘let you in’ and never let you down. Tim Keller, from memory.
Jesus is exemplary.
2. Did Jesus have favourites? Were the jealousies?
Well, there’s the disciple whom Jesus loved. Interestingly though, that’s not Peter who is the rock on which Christ says He will build the Church.
So I guess it depends what you mean by favourites.
There were jealousies, vying for positions. And selection, which implied a closer relationship or deeper, wider, gospel purpose.
Better a friend nearby than a brother far off.
Colin – you say that Jesus seemed extraordinarily close to some of his disciples.
Two points come to mind. Firstly, that was the nature of the “rabbinic” (if that’s not an anachronism) discipleship model in Second Temple Judaism, the disciples lived extremely close to their teacher, observed his every action, and if his actions did not match his words, they were not obliged to hang around, and could scoot off somewhere else. There was a saying that if the rabbi went into exile his disciples would follow him, but conversely if a disciple was thrown into prison his rabbi would join him. Close two-way commitment.
Secondly, we forget how many of the disciples were family members, so had known Jesus most of their lives. At least six were cousins (possibly more were extended family for all we know). And these young lads following their (presumably older?) cousin around were often accompanied by their mums. At least three of the women named as part of Jesus’ touring entourage were his aunts. So, yes, there were close-knit family relationships involved before the ministry stuff began and it all got a bit serious.
Funny how a discussion about friendship veered off on to a siding about nuclear and OT style families, which turns out to be quite relevant to Jesus’ discipleship practice after all.
Quite where this fits with Ian’s original point about friendship, I’m still pondering, except that it seems this Kingdom stuff is somehow all very relational.
The conversation much like the correspondences tells us little about a definition of friendship or the even deeper, fellowship.
Peter whom Christ includes in his statement { “Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you. John 15:15}
However much Peter protested his undying friendship, like most of the others fled the scene of apparent defeat.
I think that Jesus when restoring Peter and examining his Love of himself was drawing him into the much deeper, Fellowship.
There is a marked difference between friendship and fellowship.
But in Abraham the two are combined.
What does it mean to be “the friend of God” or even a friend of God”.
Paul was abandoned by many friends and churches apart from a very few who share with him in the “Fellowship of the Gospel ”,not ashamed of the Gospel or of his chains.
I think there is so much that is being missed.
Far beyond examples of being paragons of friendship, whom many will have not known, there is a wealth of information of the two entities within the Scriptures.
One other point the quotation of James K.A. Smith
“friendship across the generations becomes a lifeline, an almost sacramental means of transcending the purview of our now as God gives us an outside glimpse of our moment” can anyone translate?
There were jealousies, vying for positions. And selection, which implied a closer relationship or deeper, wider, gospel purpose.
Thank you for all this Ian, John and Ed. Given that this is mainly a piece about male friendship, what I miss is a discussion about whether and how the marriage – of either party – does or should change the nature of friendships between men. (We haven’t been told whether Wyatt was married or single at the time of his friendship with Stott.)
Can you give us examples of, and/or hints about, healthy male-male friendships between (i) two married men, (ii) an older single man and a younger married one (iii) an older married man and a younger single one? Thanks in advance!
Im not married but I would think in general it would be healthy if the man in a marriage had a friendship or two with other men, though I think for most people, male or female, friends tend to be of a similar age, give or take a few years. But I suspect many married men fall back on their wives for continued friendship. What I find depressing is the impression I get that few Christians, perhaps especially men, attending church make real, genuine friends with others attending.