Wow! I should have anticipated how impressively you would write. It helps being a lawyer, don’t you think? I’m hiring you next time I need a defense, no questions asked!! ☺

The main issue I struggle with (i.e., the questions I keep coming back to) has to do with mission. If women are not included with men (or vice versa), how do we, practically speaking, take on the flesh of our new family? We need each other, right? Well, how does that look?

There isn’t much concern in my field (psychological counseling) about male-female relationships (and it would be disingenuous to suggest intimacy isn’t a part of it) because transparency is expected and oversight is embedded. The same issue may come up for pastors/ministers/priests as well. My question is how do we value the gifts (friendships, spiritual direction, family, mentoring, etc.) each of us bring while living under the fear of scandal? It’s funny, because in my field (social work/counseling) there is a lot more acceptance (and perhaps also protection) toward male-female friendships than I’ve experienced in traditional evangelical communities. Why is that? Do you think the incidences of affairs are avoided in those communities that put into practice the traditional male-female guidelines?

Part of the context for asking these sorts of questions actually has to do with an idea that I’ve mulling around for quite a while now: communal living. While living communally, I understand that I also need to understand and perhaps challenge traditional understandings of cgfs. Most of the rules we currently operate under (for what constitutes an appropriate emotional/physical distance from the opposite sex) are based on particular patriarchal assumptions about emotional intimacy, gender roles, and the nature of cohesive and healthy relationships in community. Maybe some day I’ll unpack what I exactly mean by all that (update: I just read a nice blog post about this by Dan Brennan: http://danbrennan.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/11/mark_driscoll_f.html and I think he sums up a lot of my questions and concerns). But for now, it’s enough to say that our current “rules” for cross-gender intimacy seem ill-fitting in a missional context. The specifics of what the new/old rules might look like for cgfs of any stripe or level of intimacy in our emerging context might be an interesting conversation to have.

Any thoughts?

Thanks again, Matt, for sharing in the conversation and sharpening our thinking.

Jason,

In response to your question I offer the following long-winded opinion on this issue.

Will lust (as defined by Jesus) enter into one’s friendships with women no matter what?

No, definitely not. The “Harry Met Sally” quote was just to illustrate the point. A man can and should be friendly and have friendships with a woman without resorting to lusting for them, however the real question in my mind is the definition (and level) of friendship which one would expect or hope to achieve with a member of the opposite sex. (As a side note, I assume you are referencing Jesus’ discussion on lust being equivalent to adultery. I cannot think of where else he spoke about lust.)

In my opinion deep friendships are not advisable with a member of the opposite sex to whom you are not married, related, or planning/hoping/considering marriage.

Men and women were created by God to fulfill roles, and a significant part of those roles is attraction, love, marriage, etc. Denying those elements of the man/woman relationship does not make them disappear, and while they may be non-existent or suppressed in a particular situation, I think more times than not, they will play a role.

I believe it is unwise for a married man to pursue or foster deep friendship with either a single woman or married woman.

With a single woman, you are placing yourself in a situation of one or both of you resisting feelings and urges in the interest of “friendship”. What is the goal? To prove that it is possible? Is there something present in that friendship relationship that cannot be obtained through a friendship with an individual of the same gender, your spouse, or a couple? If so, a line has probably already been crossed (at least mentally or emotionally) for one or both of those involved.

With a married woman, you are entering into a role with another man’s wife that is not yours to fill. Is there something that you are contributing to that woman’s life that cannot be fulfilled by her spouse?

The reality is that one or both individuals may have the best of intentions, and may continue in a genuine, pure friendship relationship for years or even their whole lives, but its like playing with fire. Emotional ties which should be reserved for one’s spouse may develop, and in reality a relationship can bypass the realm of lust altogether and actually develop into a spousal type of love. True, genuine, but inappropriate marital type love.

It is unrealistic to say that a friendship with a member of the opposite gender would, could, or should be the same as friendship with a member of the same gender. Would you be ok with having a conversation? Sure. Would you be ok with having lunch alone? Uh… How about dinner? Going to a see a movie? How about taking a trip for the weekend?

1 Timothy 5:2 says “Treat younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity.” And you could say “hey I would go out to dinner with my sister”, but I believe absolute purity involves purity in appearance as well. Keeping your reputation and the reputation of the woman unquestionable.

Titus 2:3 says “Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live…Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children…” In my opinion (opening up a huge can of worms for another topic) The role of training and teaching of other women is reserved for fathers, husbands, and other women. A male friend should not be filling that role.

Ok, that’s all for now…

That’s one funny movie! I had forgotten about this scene. My favorite line from it: “You say I’m having sex with these men without my knowledge?”

Now, assuming you’re siding with Harry on this one, I think I agree with what you’re suggesting–or at least partially. My only question is: will lust (as defined by Jesus) enter into one’s friendships with women no matter what? Depending on your answer, sexuality could start to take on different meanings.

Anyway, thanks for contributing to the post Matt. See you on Sunday.

Harry Burns: You realize of course that we could never be friends.
Sally Albright: Why not?
Harry Burns: What I’m saying is - and this is not a come-on in any way, shape or form - is that men and women can’t be friends because the sex part always gets in the way.
Sally Albright: That’s not true. I have a number of men friends and there is no sex involved.
Harry Burns: No you don’t.
Sally Albright: Yes I do.
Harry Burns: No you don’t.
Sally Albright: Yes I do.
Harry Burns: You only think you do.
Sally Albright: You say I’m having sex with these men without my knowledge?
Harry Burns: No, what I’m saying is they all WANT to have sex with you.
Sally Albright: They do not.
Harry Burns: Do too.
Sally Albright: They do not.
Harry Burns: Do too.
Sally Albright: How do you know?
Harry Burns: Because no man can be friends with a woman that he finds attractive. He always wants to have sex with her.
Sally Albright: So, you’re saying that a man can be friends with a woman he finds unattractive?
Harry Burns: No. You pretty much want to nail ‘em too.
Sally Albright: What if THEY don’t want to have sex with YOU?
Harry Burns: Doesn’t matter because the sex thing is already out there so the friendship is ultimately doomed and that is the end of the story.
Sally Albright: Well, I guess we’re not going to be friends then.
Harry Burns: I guess not.
Sally Albright: That’s too bad. You were the only person I knew in New York.

“Intimacy sounds like such a strong word with an almost sexual connotation, but the true definition of intimacy is both the ability and the choice to be close, loving, and vulnerable.”

I couldn’t have stated it better myself.

As far as making our relationships (in the way we’re talking about it here) an idol, I wonder what the consequences might be for both women and men (married or single)? Will they refuse community, refuse to do-life-together? Will it result in isolation? How can we live out God’s mission without succumbing to crippling fear?

I was reading another post by Dan Brennan where he argues that the same reasons given for prohibiting cgf in a community of Christians tend to be the same ones given for prohibiting women in leadership. Hmm.

http://danbrennan.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/02/youre_playing_w.html

Have you finished reading Sex/God yet? I wonder what wisdom Mr. Rob Bell might have on the subject? Seems like he might be on the same track.

Good and thoughtful comments, Tara.

If you look at statistics of divorce and the amount of men and women in leadership that have fallen into affairs, any sane person would say, “run for the hills and don’t look back!!” However, where does it say in the Bible that we are to live our lives out of fear? Idolizing anything means to elevate it to a place where it receives more attention than it should. In the Old Testament, the Canaanites worship the god Baal, which was someone that they feared immensely. We too can idolize anything that we choose elevate to a place of worship or a place of fear – giving it more power than it ought to. As we approach the subject, maybe we should be more aware of our tendencies to “run for the hills,” but instead, trust that God is at work in all of us and HE is the one we should fear/revere, not each other.