I wrote the cover story for this month’s issue of Christianity Today on—you guessed it!—friendship.
A lot of what I say in the piece grew out of conversations here at SF, and I am truly grateful to you all for reading and thinking with me over the past months about these things. A fuller version will appear in my forthcoming book, but until then, here’s a teaser trailer:
I imagine a future in the church when the call to chastity would no longer sound like a dreary sentence to lifelong loneliness for a gay Christian like me. I imagine Christian communities in which friendships are celebrated and honored—where it’s normal for families to live near or with single people; where it’s expected that celibate gay people would form significant attachments to other single people, families, and pastors; where it’s standard practice for friends to spend holidays together or share vacations; where it’s not out of the ordinary for friends to consider staying put, resisting the allure of constant mobility, for the sake of their friendships. I imagine a church where genuine love isn’t located exclusively or even primarily in marriage, but where marriage and friendship and other bonds of affection are all seen as different forms of the same love we all are called to pursue.
By shifting our practice of friendship to a more committed, honored form of love, we can witness—above all—to a kingdom in which the ties between spiritual siblings are the strongest ties of all. Marriage, Jesus tells us, will be entirely transformed in the future, barely recognizable to those who know it in its present form (Matt. 22:30). Bonds of biology, likewise, are relativized in Jesus’ world (Mark 3:31–35). But the loves that unite Christians to each other across marital, racial, and familial lines are loves that will last. More than that, they are loves that witness that Christ’s love is available to all. Not everyone can be a parent or a spouse, but anyone and everyone can be a friend.
Spiritual Friendship 
“I imagine a church where genuine love isn’t located exclusively or even primarily in marriage, but where marriage and friendship and other bonds of affection are all seen as different forms of the same love we all are called to pursue.”
With all due respect to you and the terrible burden faced by those experiencing SSA, this simply isn’t the call of the Church.
We all have single people in our lives. They should always be treasured and know that they are valued within the Church. But what you’re pushing for is equality in form that goes against the purposes of marriage, as much as any sexual relationship outside of marriage. The meanings of marriage and procreation are intertwined – it should be a clear signal of what true love is and can only be.
It is not possible for the single or celibate to experience that same love. That is unfortunate for SSA-individuals. It does not mean they are entirely excluded from the bonds of friendship, family, and love, but they cannot have the impossible.
Where exactly in the Bible are you reading that marriage is some form of higher relation that single members of the church cannot reach? The early leaders of the church gave instructions that Christians, as brothers and sisters in Christ, must honor, love, encourage, and build one another up (1 Thes. 5:11, I John 3:11, Romans 12:10). These same instructions are given to spouses. Marriage, also, is an institution that will pass away. However, the relationships that we have to one another in Christ will not. In Heaven there will be a higher form of relationships to one another and to Christ that does not include marriage. Surely the honored status of spiritual friendship does not make it a lesser institution than marriage.
The truest form of love is that of Christ towards the church and does not include marriage or procreation. And this is the type of relationship/ friendship that believers should strive towards with each other. This friendship is also not a threat to the institution of marriage because any successful marriage should be founded in spiritual friendship.
The type of friendship/love that Dr. Hill is striving towards seeing in the church is difficult and costly of effort but it surely is not impossible.
Hi Patience,
I agree that friendship should take a more active role in the church but the love of Christ to the Church is compare, in the bible, to the love within marriage.
You perfectly capture the problem in the modern era: individuals oriented inwards towards themselves, away from Christ and away from the Church.
Christ does not want us all to be happy or fulfilled. He wants us to love. And we are all free to love. But the Church cannot make friendships into marriages. Marriages – oriented towards procreation – are the true love because they provide continuity for Christ and the Church.
So yes, the form of spiritual friendship you support is ‘lesser’, because how can it be otherwise?
Noah,
Christ DOES want us to be happy and fulfill. Just not as the world wants us to be. Just not with the world’s happinnes and fulfillment…
“Christ DOES want us to be happy and fulfill. Just not as the world wants us to be. Just not with the world’s happinnes and fulfillment…”
I think you inadvertently captured at what I was getting at. Happiness and fulfillment are not possible in this world. We are broken, sinful creatures in a fallen world.
That is the fatal flaw with what Dr. Hill proposes: a presumption that the ‘friendship’ he proposes can channel and transform the inherently evil – in this case, disordered sexuality – into something spiritual. That is impossible. And it is dangerous.
What is your view of celibacy as a form of calling?
Hi Ron,
I will take the liberty of answering to you: 1 Corinthians 7,32:34
Thanks, Rosa, but I’m mainly interested in Noah’s answer. I suspect his response above is based more on modern American attitudes to marriage and celibacy than on New Testament teaching. But I want to understand where he is coming from before I disagree with him. Thus the request for clarification.
Thank you Ron… I wish he would answer too.
Ron,
We should not ever confuse or conflate that which pleases us from that which pleases Christ.
Several decades ago, I had the opportunity to have a candid conversation with a (now long-deceased) chaplain. Over a long evening, we revealed truths about ourselves that we had not told anyone else. His candidness inspired me to ask an inappropriate but burning question: how did he cope with celibacy?
His reply: he suffered. Celibacy and abstinence were for him terrible wounds, and it would always be so. I have met others since then who have more positive perceptions of their burdens. But I am convinced that priest was correct. Celibacy is a noble choice, and it may please God, but because we are fallen, sinful beings, we should not lie to those who so choose that path and tell them that they experience the same fulfillment and love I experience with my wife.
Noah,
I find it interesting, but not at all surprising, to learn that, when asked your view of celibacy, you do not go to the word of God, but tell a story about an unhappy celibate priest you knew once.
My question was not about personal anecdotes, but about God’s will. Since it turns out that you lean primarily on personal experience, and not on God’s word, there’s not even a point in arguing. I look to the Bible for guidance. If you don’t, then I am not going to change my mind from listening to your opinions.
I would also note that, if we’re basing our evaluation on experience, marital unhappiness is not uncommon. Before extolling marriage as the one relationship above all others, you might remind yourself that not everyone lives happily ever after; celibates have no monopoly on difficult vocations.
I don’t think that our evaluation of either marriage or celibacy should come primarily from the experience of fallen humans. It should come, first of all, from Scripture and the Christian tradition. Both vocations have challenges, because both are part of the larger calling to take up our cross and follow Christ, who said: “Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13).
If you have found marriage to be a greater love than friendship in your experience, I can’t argue with your experience. But I’m more interested in understanding what Jesus says about the greatest love than I am in your opinion, which, in my opinion, has a number of blind spots.
Ron,
“My question was not about personal anecdotes, but about God’s will. Since it turns out that you lean primarily on personal experience, and not on God’s word, there’s not even a point in arguing. I look to the Bible for guidance. If you don’t, then I am not going to change my mind from listening to your opinions.”
It should be perfectly clear that I used that anecdote for its illustrative purposes, not as the basis for my argument. I do look to the Bible and the Church for guidance – which is why I cannot allow Dr. Hill to voice his dangerous opinion unchallenged.
And it is intellectually dishonest of you to pretend that I am unworthy of debate. You asked a question. I provided an answer. You are either unwilling to be an honest debater, or (more accurately I suspect) you know that I am right and cannot answer.
“I would also note that, if we’re basing our evaluation on experience, martial unhappiness is not uncommon.”
What the world calls ‘unhappiness’ is very different from what Christ intends for us to find by following His Word. Marital unhappiness in modern parlance simply means ‘I am unhappy that my partner doesn’t fulfill my earthly desires.’
“Both vocations have challenges, because both are part of the larger calling to take up our cross and follow Christ, who said: “Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13).”
Dr. Hill’s arguments about friendship have no basis in Scripture. That is why they are wrong.
” But I’m more interested in understanding what Jesus says about the greatest love than I am in your opinion, which, in my opinion, has a number of blind spots.”
I would hope you would be. But I am not expressing my opinion, I am reiterating God’s Word. And it is not subject to interpretation, simply because those unhappy with the Church can find the calling of celibacy more palatable.
Dear Noah,
So far, if I’m counting correctly, you have posted 14 comments totaling 1,432 words on this comment thread. You repeatedly insist that you are reiterating God’s word. But despite several explicit requests for you to quote Scripture, you have only done so once, and then only because you were quoting me. In that case, the Scripture in question was John 15:13: “Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.”
Since your claim is that marriage is the greatest love, this quote seems to hurt, rather than help your claim.
In response to Grace, you wrote: “We serve Christ. We do not serve ourselves. We do not serve our emotional well-being.” But the Apostle Paul wrote, “The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband” (1 Corinthians 7:32-34). Paul does not condemn marriage. But he does not treat it as the highest way of serving Christ. Why, if you are so anxious that we serve Christ undividedly, do you exalt the way of life which Paul warned would make it more difficult to give Christ undivided love over the way of life which Paul praised as more conducive to undivided love?
You speak of the unique “fulfillment and love” you experience with your wife, and deny that two men could experience this. Yet King David said of his friend Jonathan, “I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; very pleasant have you been to me; your love to me was extraordinary, surpassing the love of women” (2 Samuel 1:26). How would you interpret this other than meaning that friendship can, at least sometimes, be a greater and more fulfilling love than marriage?
Again, you claim that marriage is the highest form of love there is, but in an argument with the Sadducees, Jesus said, “In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven” (Matthew 22:30). If you are correct, then it would seem that the highest point of love you will ever achieve is the love you share, for a few fleeting years on this earth, with your wife. In heaven, you will have lost the highest love, marriage, and will live the “impoverished” life of a celibate through all eternity.
Since you raise the question of debate, I will share a few tips with you, as a philosophy teacher and former debate coach.
In response to a comment from Rosa, before you responded to my question, I said, “I suspect his response above is based more on modern American attitudes to marriage and celibacy than on New Testament teaching.” A more skilled debater, finding himself in your position, would have quoted the Bible, in order to show that his views were rooted in Scripture and thus undercut my already expressed suspicion. Appealing to the experience of a dissatisfied celibate priest only weakened your argument further by ignoring Scripture and making it seem like your position rested on modern American attitudes (in this case, the attitude of an unhappy priest).
Again, in my response to you, I pointed out that you had not appealed to Scripture. The most effective response to me here would have been to simply to quote Scripture. I did not pretend that you were unworthy of debate. I said I wanted a debate about Scripture, that you were not providing it, and that I wasn’t interested in your anecdotal responses. Don’t tell me that you’re reiterating Scripture. Show me that Scripture backs you up by quoting it, and interpreting it persuasively.
You have been very blunt with several other commenters in this thread, and so I am being blunt with you. I am not the only commenter on this thread who has noticed the lack of Scriptural citation in your arguments. If you are arguing with other Christians who ask for Scriptural references to back up your position, the most persuasive approach you can take to the conversation is to cite Scripture.
Ron,
Your condescension (” I will share a few tips with you, as a philosophy teacher and former debate coach.”) does not go unnoticed. You are obviously not interested in actual debate, merely reinforcing a dangerous belief that equates ‘friendship’ with marriage.
I would also point out that you make assumptions:
“Appealing to the experience of a dissatisfied celibate priest only weakened your argument further by ignoring Scripture and making it seem like your position rested on modern American attitudes (in this case, the attitude of an unhappy priest).”
That have no basis in fact. The anecdote – clearly meant to be illustrative, not dispositive – is still an anecdote.
Incidentally, the priest was (a) born before 1900, and (b) not American. Nor am I, for that matter. So I make no claim of knowledge on what ‘modern’ American attitudes towards celibacy are.
Do you maintain that friends cannot have a bond of true love? I thank God (literally!) that the couple of people whom I am blessed to call my closest friends don’t hold your terrifying views!
I couldn’t agree more, LJ! I’m so grateful that my best friends, whom I love so deeply, don’t see the love I have for them as inferior to the (temporal, not-eternal) romantic love they have for their spouses.
Yes, I do maintain that friends – even close friends – cannot have true bonds of love equivalent to marriage. I don’t deny that friends can love each other deeply, but you are intimating that they possess something that is unique – in the design of Creation – to a man and woman joined in marriage.
Grace,
Marriage is not about romantic love.
Grace,
I would also echo Rosa’s comment. Marriage and marital love are not about romance. That is the fallacy that led to our broken culture thinking the sexual activities between two men or two men could constitute a marriage. It is also why marriage between a man and a woman can have no equivalent.
I’m not silly enough to think that one can directly compare the love between friends to the love between spouses. They’re apples and oranges, as the cliche goes. But yet, the love of friends is true and can grow to incredible depth. Thankfully, I don’t need random people on the internet to validate my friendships, which bring me joy and help me through the sufferings that we all face.
Oh, yeah, by the way, while celibacy is a cause of incredible suffering and loneliness for some, one does not have to experience it in this way to please God. I will respect the experiences of people who have a hard time of it, and I’d ask that you respect my experience to the contrary. I’d also echo Ron’s [much better worded] request that you back up your extraordinary claims with evidence from scripture, or there will be no point engaging in further conversation.
Wow, that is one of the most disheartening things I have read in all my years on this earth.
How terrible, then, for Saint Paul, and those countless thousands of virgin martyrs and saints never getting to know what “true love is and can only be.”
It is terrible. And I do not think the sacrifice should be downplayed. I have nothing but respect for those who cannot experience the love that only a man and a woman – joined in marriage – create.
So I take issue with someone telling a young Christian afflicted with SSA that there are possibilities – relationships – that can channel their desires without going against Christ. SSA is disordered. It cannot be ordered through friendship. That is a terrible message to tell a young person, but we cannot shy away from the truth.
Noah, I just cannot object strenuously enough to your characterization of friendship — the only form of love that will last into eternity — as somehow inferior or less real than spousal love. “Greater love has no man than this; that he would lay down his life”… not for his spouse, but “for his friend.”
My life as an unmarried person (note: I am straight) can never include genuine human love in your model. That is… baffling to me. Where do the scriptures exalt spousal love above all other loves? Where does Christ exalt it above other loves?
Grace the bible also says that husbands should lay down their lives for their wives.
Grace,
With all due respect – you misunderstand what love actually is and what it’s purpose is. You have adopted the worldly view of love. To the extent that you are using the affection you find in friendship bonds towards your own personal fulfillment and happiness, you are removed from Christ and the Church.
Actually, Noah, I would argue that true spiritual friendship places Christ and his glory at the center in much the same way that a Christian marriage places Christ and his glory at the center.
Also, brother, please be more circumspect in attributing our difference of opinion to selfishness, worldliness, or sin, remembering both that I am your sister and that you do not know me. Thank you.
“Actually, Noah, I would argue that true spiritual friendship places Christ and his glory at the center in much the same way that a Christian marriage places Christ and his glory at the center.”
I would not say otherwise. But what you describe is not “true spiritual friendship” – it is a quest for emotional self-fulfillment that goes against our purpose. We serve Christ. We do not serve ourselves. We do not serve our emotional well-being.
“Also, brother, please be more circumspect in attributing our difference of opinion to selfishness, worldliness, or sin, remembering both that I am your sister and that you do not know me. Thank you.”
Grace, I am sorry, but the truth will always be more important to me than hurting someone’s feelings. I admit I do not know you, so all I can do is to derive an opinion based on what you write. And what you write is troubling. If I am blunt, it is because I am concerned about the path you might take.
You are wrong Noah. One can be happy and fulfilled in this world.
Regarding Wes I don’t agree with some of the stuff he says but gay people are certainly called to be happy and thus to transform their brokenness. Just like we all are.
Rosa,
We cannot be happy or fulfilled in this world. We can enjoy things of the world, but that is far different from the kind of happiness that Christ might desire for us.
No one – including people with SSA – are called to be happy. We are called to love and worship Christ. Both can be rewarding. Both can be terrible. Both are necessary. But what Dr. Hill proposes will not result in happiness. It will simply perpetuate the brokeness. It is a false path that prizes a worldly value (personal fulfilmment) over salvation.
I’m sorry but do you understand this: The Kingdom of God is at hand?
That’s what Christ preached. That’s the gospel. The Kingdom of God is here and now to be seized by all those who follow Christ.
A sad saint is a poor saint,
Rosa,
The absence of happiness is not sadness.
Sorry Noah. I rather trust in Christ and not in you. The kingdom of God is indeed at hand and I intend to seize it and all that it has to offer, including happiness.
Rosa,
I would sincerely hope you trust in Christ and not in me, just as I trust in Christ and not in you. But I would also hope you understand what Christ intends – and does not intend – for us.
This I know: He intends wholesome and abundant happiness for us. Dare you say differently.
“This I know: He intends wholesome and abundant happiness for us. Dare you say differently.”
Rosa, He intends happiness in a way we cannot yet conceive. Dr. Hill would lead us astray from that truth.
Again “the kingdom is at hand”. I can conceive of holly happiness here and now.
I think you just don’t believe the kingdom is at hand! You will rather say this is a metaphor or something like that but it is not. It is exactly what it says. The kingdom is here. I am witness to this. If you would only believe!
Noah: I hope this question is in the correct place. I am curious. Suppose a SSA person does have close friendships–with same and opposite sex persons–and he feels joy in those friendships. Am I correct in assuming you would find this “dangerous”? You have used the word danger several times in this blog. If so, in what way(s), specifically, is it dangerous?
Hypatia:
“Suppose a SSA person does have close friendships–with same and opposite sex persons–and he feels joy in those friendships. Am I correct in assuming you would find this “dangerous”? You have used the word danger several times in this blog. If so, in what way(s), specifically, is it dangerous?”
I think it would depend on the circumstances. I think as a rule that anyone afflicted with SSA must be more circumspect in the friendships they form with members of the same sex.
The problem I have with Dr. Hill’s exhortation for all those called to celibacy, i.e. all those who will not enter into marriage is that it attempts to make equal that which is not equal. For similar reasons for why we must oppose all recognition of SSA relationsips (i.e. civil unions, domestic partnerships, presumptive inheritance and visitation rights), we should be wary of giving special recognition to friendship dynamics where no recognition is needed. Single people are not restricted from forming friendships, nor are they excluded from the Church by virture of their singleness. They do not need the Church affirming their relationships and shifting focus from what should be of greatest concern: restoring marriage to its proper place in society.
Noah: I just posted a question to you and inadvertently put it on a stream proceeding from Rosa–so you may not receive it. It is below, dated today.
Again it landed in the wrong place. Oh well. One last try. I am curious about your answer, if you manage to find my post.
I wonder if the respective loves of marriage and friendship (and parents and offspring) are different examples of God’s love. The love of Christ to the Church is definitely matrimonial, but his love to individual Christians is that of friend/brother. (And also God is our Father.) The loves humans can display have their originals in the loves of God.
This is ancient Christianity and one can find this today in Christian societies which have not been completely overwhelmed by modernity. Singles of various sorts – widows and widowers, monastics in the world, those abandoned by spouses, and just plain singles – are valued and have significant roles. These roles are not formalized so to speak, but they are nevertheless extremely important.
Friendship is also highly valued. In Ethiopia where I am from, it is not unusual to find David and Jonathan types of relationships among married men and women.
I think a major problem here is that modernity has transformed society in hidden ways that undermine Christianity. What would we say today of St Paul – who was quite ordinary in his time?
Noah, I’m curious what you mean when you say that the “love” experienced in marriage is greater than the “love” in any other relationship. By “love”, do you mean the feeling of warmness and affection, or sexual attraction, that the husband or wife experiences towards his or her spouse, or do you mean the actions of love that one member of the marriage experiences from the other? And what forms of love (feeling or action) do you believe Dr Hall is urging between Christian friends, that are only appropriate for a husband and wife? Forgive me if these questions are overly obvious or you have already answered them, but I’d appreciate some clarification.
Noah:
“Rosa,
We cannot be happy or fulfilled in this world. We can enjoy things of the world, but that is far different from the kind of happiness that Christ might desire for us.”
“Rosa, He intends happiness in a way we cannot yet conceive. Dr. Hill would lead us astray from that truth.”
You respond to others with a voice of authority, but where is your basis for assertions such as these?
1) You have yet to reference one Scripture to confirm any of the strong assertions that you have made throughout this comments section.
2) You have yet to reference one theologian who would agree with any of your assertions.
3) While I cannot pinpoint exactly what the problem is with your rationale throughout most of this discussion has some sort of light flavorings of gnosticism or something similar.
4) You routinely disparage the viewpoints of others, make judgments regarding their character with no true apology when called out on it, show no respect for even the slightest sliver of truth in what others may say, and generally hold yourself up to be the final authority here.
And on what basis do you expect people to respect and value your thoughts? (Please don’t answer that, as I’m sure you’re inclined to do…this is a rhetorical question.)
Note to the moderators…I am typically rather mild-mannered and rarely comment, but I didn’t feel like I could continue to silently observe these interactions. If you feel it would be inappropriate to post this comment, I respect that decision.
Reading Noah’s comments, the more I read the more I was struck by the arrogant tone. Reminded of past conversations with Christians like that, I felt a spurt of happiness about the fact that I left Christianity. So I now feel compelled to post after lurking for several weeks.
After reading Noah’s statement “Marriages – oriented towards procreation – are the true love because they provide continuity for Christ and the Church” I thought “Why, then, didn’t Jesus get married? I guess Jesus didn’t role model true love” and “If a Christian strives to be truly like Jesus by not marrying, then he/she is not contributing to the continuity of Christ and the Church?”
Quite a few interesting comments for this blog post. I imagine more will come.
I guess Noah is trying to present a “hard truth” – that not all loves are equal. Any comparison with singleness would then be off topic.
Noah seems to be saying that any love that is not marriage is not a true love – i.e. that there should not or cannot be love in friendship, and that celibacy has to be a difficult, lonely affair or you’re not doing it right. He then has the gall to say that everyone else bases their views on incorrect scriptural interpretation, while he holds to what The Bible Actually Says (TM). You can call that a “hard truth” if you’d like. I’d just say he’s being a jerk.
LJ,
The fact that you resort to insulting me rather than rebutting anything I said amply demonstrates that you have nothing of substance to contribute to the conversation. I will waste no time debating you, and I suggest you remove yourself from the debate entirely until you feel ready to civilly engage with your brothers and sisters in Christ.
Noah, since you have presented no scriptural arguments of substance, there is no viable material about which we could have a debate. On the other hand, your continued condescension continues to amuse me. Anyway, thank you for reminding me to appreciate and thank God for the wonderful and loving people who are my close friends in real life.
One suggestion comes to mind to the bloggers I’m SF: it now occurs to me that when you are advocating for friendship, do you really have to mention marriage?… Wouldn’t it be better not to mention marriage at all?
Noah: see above. Tx