amicus

Amicus Meus: Recovering Spiritual Friendship Among Men

by Michael Mallory (Spring 2010)

            “A friend,” according to the wisdom of Solomon, “loves at all times”[1] and “a true friend sticks closer than one’s nearest kin.”[2]  The poet, Kahlil Gibran writes, “Your friend is your needs answered.  He is your field which you sow with love and reap with thanksgiving.”[3]  Brotherhood, either as a description of common nationality or as a designation of our closest friends, according to Joseph Ratzinger, “implies a frontier.”[4]  A friend, like love, has many nuances of meaning but to enter into a covenant of friendship with someone is a process of discovery.   Intimacy, and vulnerability, are key elements in forging this important and life sustaining bond.  Attitudes regarding same-sex intimacy and vulnerability go against the hetero-normative ideal of the American man.  Homophobia, according to Tom Williamson, an activist in the men’s movement, is redefined “to mean one man’s fear of getting emotionally or physically close to another man.”[5]  This strange form of homophobia is so insidious that it colors the way that history of male sexuality is understood.  Strong affections and desires expressed between men of antiquity, or today, do not always mean the same as a modern day homosexual relationship.  This behavioral taboo is moving more out of fashion as the 21st century begins.  The visibility of the queer community and the emergence of the metrosexual are effectively challenging the norms of male bonding and friendship. 

Aelred of Rievaulx, a 12th century monk, offers an exceptional account on friendship.  His book, Spiritual Friendship, was written in response to his reaction to Marcus Tullius Cicero’s treatise on friendship that was written in 44 BC.[6]  The treatise by Cicero did not have the sweetness of the Scripture and so Aelred decided to “draw up for [himself] rules for a chaste and holy love.”[7] Aelred was of the Cistercian order which attempted to live the Rule of St. Benedict more perfectly.  The idea of special friendship amongst the order of monks was looked down upon for fear of division amongst the ranks.  Aelred offers in this book concepts and ideas that are still applicable, and perhaps revelatory, for our understanding of friendship today.  Certainly, Aelred is still speaking at a time when the carnal appetites of the body were looked at with less favor than the ideals of spiritual perfection and transcendence.   The conversation in our own day regarding embodiment and sexual affection as virtues are barely make inroads in theology.  Aelred is definitely speaking as a monk from his time. Yet, in regards to attitudes towards sexual expression versus spiritual perfection he might as well be speaking to the American male identity of today.   Aelred divides his treatise on friendship into three books.  The first is about the nature of friendship, the second is regarding the fruition and excellence of friendship and the last is about how to preserve friendship and amongst whom.  

The frontier is an apt metaphor to describe to essence of Aelred of Rievaulx treatise on friendship.   According to a footnote, in Aelred’s other work, Mirror of Charity, he explains more clearly this movement of love in which “having attained its object through love, it enjoys it with a certain interior sweetness, embraces it, and preserves it.”[8]  Aelred, however, insists that true friendship must be perfected in Christ and with Christ.  The first lines, he writes, “Here we are, you and I, and I hope a third, Christ, is in our midst.”[9]  The nature of friendship, then, is eternal and a friend who ceases to be a friend was never a friend.  A friend guards the soul of his friend and holds each other in confidence.  It is this spaciousness of grace and love that allows a friend to be vulnerable and to have courage in this frontier of love.  The main difference between charity and friendship according to Aelred is that charity is the love of both friend and enemy; whereas, friends are those “whom we can fearlessly entrust our heart and all its secrets.”[10] 

There are three types of friendships that Aelred explicates—carnal, worldly, and spiritual.  It is the spiritual friendship that is true.  A carnal friendship indicates the kind of friendship that is based on the appetites of the flesh.  At first glance, Aelred seems to suggest that this kind of friendship is deplorable and not equitable to the higher, spiritual friendship.  Yet, his appeal seems to be against the idea that those who enjoy this kind of friendship “judge nothing more equable” and that it “is undertaken without deliberation, is tested by no act of judgment,” and “is in no wise governed by reason.”[11]  In other words, the friendship is based entirely on the consumption of the other person through desire.  Although Aelred does not say so explicitly, this kind of friendship is like making an idol of someone and failing to recognize the transcendent qualities inherent in a bond of love.  This is like falling in love with someone because of their beauty.  The love does not grow, but decreases as the beauty decreases.

The worldly friendship is that which one hopes to gain some advantage in wealth or status.  There is no certitude in this kind of friendship since the love is not between two persons but between a person and his own desire for gain.  Aelred admits that this type of friendship can lead “to a certain degree of true friendship.”[12]  It is possible for a friendship of this sort to reach a level of mutuality based on the advantages obtained, but this type of friendship, according to Aelred,  should not be considered a true friendship.

The spiritual friendship is a love that is sought out for “the dignity of its own nature and the feelings of the human heart, so that the fruition and reward is nothing other than itself.”[13]  The prime definition of this type of friendship is: “a mutual conformity in matters human and divine united with benevolence and charity.”[14]  He does mention the four cardinal virtues-prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance—as being integral to the composite of friendship.  According to the editor’s note, in another treatise Aelred mentions these virtues as being “nothing more than charity exercised in different circumstances.”[15]  Thus, spiritual friendship is a virtue.

Aelred speculates that all of nature is replete with examples of friendship.  He asks, “what soil or what river produces one single stone of one kind?  Or what forest bears but a single tree of a single kind?”[16]  He also recognizes the companionship that animals share and how the play with each other and that even the angels are not one, but many.  With these words, Aelred speaks a language similar to liberation theology in recognizing solidarity in diversity and strength in community.  Going beyond even the male dominated worldview he offers a feminist theological position when he states, “how beautiful it is that the second human being was taken from the side of the first, so that nature might teach that human beings are equal… and that there is in human affairs neither a superior nor an inferior, a characteristic of true friendship.”[17]

As book one comes to an end, Aelred leads the discussion towards wisdom and friendship.  Although dissimilar in ways, they are congruous albeit different in degree to each other.  Yet, if it holds true that all virtues are eternal how can wisdom not be ranked along with friendship, truth and charity.  Is God the same as friendship?  Aelred suggests that Scripture does not necessarily sanction this thought but he does quote 1 John 4:16, “he that abides in friendship, abides in God, and God in him.”[18]  In sum, this book on the nature of friendship suggests that a true virtuous friendship is one that is eternally bound together with love of one another and with that of Christ.

The second book is about the fruition and excellence of true friendship.  It begins by pointing out that life would be not worth living if there was no friend to bear the burdens of our story.  Ecclesiastes, that most pessimistic book, is evoked by Aelred when he writes, “Woe to him that is alone, for when he falls, he has none to lift him up.”[19]  “Friendship,” on the other hand, “bears fruit in this life and the next.”[20]  This previous quote is found in 1 Timothy 4:8, except the word friendship is actually godliness.  It seems that Aelred is again claiming that God is friendship.  He further supports this view by stating, “friendship is a stage bordering upon that perfection which consists in the love and knowledge of God, so that man from being a friend of his fellowman becomes the friend of God.”[21]

Song of Solomon begins, “Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth!”[22]  Aelred, like most commentators for Song of Solomon, allegorizes this to mean the kiss of Christ.  He then explicates three different kinds of kiss: the corporeal, the spiritual, and the intellectual.  It is clear that he wishes to move from the carnal to the spiritual as if these were separate domains of human experience.  This is made clear when he suggests we “consider the character of the carnal kiss, so that we may pass from the carnal to the spiritual, from the human to the divine.”[23]   He starts by reminding us that we cannot live even a moment without our breath, and that when we kiss we unite our breath, thus becoming one.   This is a bonding of our affections and a certain sweetness is born. 

A corporeal kiss is a kiss that marks reconciliation, or a kiss of peace as taught by Christ, or what is permitted in marriage as “a symbol of love.”[24]  Also, a corporeal kiss is reserved for a friend who has been away for a long time and in receiving guests.  The corporeal kiss that must be despised and shunned is, no surprise, the kiss that stirs up lustful passions.  A spiritual kiss, on the other hand, is not formed by the impression of the lips, but by the impression of the heart.  This kiss is offered not by the mouth of Christ, but by another, namely those who dwell in Christ together—“one spirit in many bodies.”[25]  The third kiss, the intellectual kiss, he explains briefly as a “kiss through the Spirit of God, by the infusion of grace.”[26]  It is this commentary on the kiss that best illustrates the tension between the body and the spirit and the developing ideas of celibacy and chastity.  Yet, within this language is a poetic that illustrates the beauty inherent in a kiss—whether it is carnal, or otherwise.  Thus far, book two has described the fruition of friendship as “mounting aloft through degrees of love to friendship with Christ” and thus “he is made one spirit with him in one kiss.”[27]  The rest of the second book examines the limits of friendship. 

Aelred alludes to the words of Christ from the gospel of John to claim the goal of friendship: “Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”[28]  Yet, to die for a friend does not necessarily mean that one has reached the perfection of friendship.  For, according to Aelred, even those who enjoy wickedness are willing to lay their life down for a friend.  Therefore, purity is better than sensuality, moderation than indiscretion, and correction over flattery.[29]  Friendship is no excuse for sin and the endurance of friendship can only be found among the good. 

There are certain friendships that should be avoided should they present themselves.  The puerile friendship is a child-like friendship in which a person shows affection to “every passer-by without reason… without consideration of advantage or disadvantage.”[30]  A friendship based on the likeness of evil must be avoided.  A friendship based on a certain advantage should also be avoided since benefits should follow friendship—not precede it.  Ultimately, any action that brings about the “death of the soul” should be denied.

The final book, book three, is titled “the conditions and characters requisite for unbroken friendship.”[31]  This book is more instructive than the others.  It begins by describing the nuances of love and the foundation of spiritual love. Then, Aelred describes the stages necessary in choosing and cultivating a friendship. 

The centrality of love is without a doubt the essential quality of friendship and the main message of the gospel.  Aelred confirms this centrality when he writes, “The fountain and source of friendship is love.  There can be love without friendship, but friendship without love is impossible.”[32]  What other kind of love is there?  According to Aelred, love can proceed from nature, duty, reason, or affection.   Love that proceeds from nature is the mother’s love of her child.  Love based on duty is through a mutual exchange in which men are joined by a special purpose—such as comrades or soldiers.  Love that is informed by reason is the love that Christ commands of us for our enemies and strangers.  Finally, love based on affection is a love according to the qualities of the other person—beauty, eloquence, strength, etc.  A spiritual friend is one who combines the qualities of reason and affection so that “the love is pure because of reason and sweet because of affection.”[33]

A person must go through several stages before be admitted into the eternity of friendship—selection, probation, admittance, and cultivation.  Aelred is specific about who should not be considered as a worthy candidate.  He first lists the five vices that leads to the dissolution of friendship—upbraiding, reproach, pride, disclosing secrets and treacherous wounds.  Additionally, he adds to this list men with excessive anger, the fickle, the suspicious and the talkative.  Aelred insists that one should seek another person who is harmonious in habits and dispositions as your own.  These negative qualities do not necessarily mean that a person is not capable of being a friend, it only indicates the stumbling blocks in the pursuit of perfect friendship.

Aelred mentions several times the passage from Proverbs 17:17 which insists that a friend loves at all times.  Therefore, a friendship can be dissolved, but the love of the friend must not end.  Aelred says, “if the one whom you love offends you, continue to love him despite the hurt.  His conduct may compel the withdrawal of friendship, but never of love.”[34]  He tells us that friendship should not outweigh our responsibilities of faith and religion. 

There are four elements inherent in friendship—love and affection, security and happiness.  Aelred explicates: “Love implies a rendering of services with benevolence, affection, an inward pleasure that manifests itself exteriorly; security, a revelation of all counsels and confidences without fear and suspicion; happiness, a pleasing and friendly sharing of all events which occur, whether joyful or sad…”[35]  A darkening of the soul in respect to the loss of these qualities are indicators of a friendship that might need to be dissolved.  Yet, Aelred insists that the ending of friendship “should be done with a certain moderation and reverence” so that the love of that friend is still evident.[36]

The second stage in choosing a friend is probation.  Aelred lists four qualities that must be tested—loyalty, right intention, discretion and patience.  Loyalty is tested best in times of adversity.  Otherwise, loyalty can be tested by disclosing small, unimportant secrets that if disclosed will not cause much harm.  In this way, the loyalty of the friend can be tested incrementally until you have gained greater confidence in him.  The intention of this friend must be tested to ensure that he wishes to love and be loved without any material compensation.  For friendship is “a thing full of beauty, full of grace.  It is a virtue, not a trade, because it is bought with love, not money.”[37]  Discretion is a very important quality to test in your friend since, according to Aelred, “if anyone lacks it, he is like a ship bereft of its pilot, borne along by every shifting and irrational movement.”[38]  As for patience, a friend must be rebuked, sometimes severely, according to the violations of these qualities.  Yet, patience from both friends must hold sway over any immediate decision to dissolve the friendship since “the fruit of this labor is the medicine of life and the most solid foundation of immortality.”[39]

Finally, once a friend is admitted then the benefits of friendship are cultivated.  Although social ranks may designate a person as inferior or superior a friend is always considered equal.  Aelred tells us that “there should never be any delay in a friend’s service.”[40]  If a friend requires reproach, you must not admonish him publicly.  One must tolerate dissimulation and detest simulation.  In other words, the right place and disposition of person must be acceptable before you reprimand or correct his behavior.

Aelred offers us a beautiful exemplar of friendship according to his cultural lens of 12th century and cenobite traditions.  This code of friendship can offer the modern American man some discussion regarding friendship with their spouse or partner.  Friendship today goes beyond gender. The rite of marriage is a rite of friendship.  The frontier analogy offered by Joseph Ratzinger regarding Christian brotherhood is a powerful image for imagining the journey of matrimony.  Matrimony is the legal sanction of making another person family; friendship is the spiritual sanction of making another person family.

There is a ferocious debate in the United States regarding marriage for same-sex relationships.  The idea of preserving the sanctity of marriage is meant to suggest that marriage is a static, unchanging institution.  Marriage has changed throughout history along with gender roles and norms.   The very idea of a spouse being a soul-mate is a relatively recent phenomenon.  Aelred tells us that it would not be worth living in a world without a friend.  The institution of marriage might be less threatened by divorce if a stronger ethics of friendship was understood.

            What does a Christian ethic of friendship look like in the 21st century?  Marriage is only one example of the antagonistic and confrontational nature of “Christian” religious expression in the United States.  The queer community as an oppressed community has learned to forge strong and healthy relationships in spite of their negative portrayal.  This community is part of a larger revolution that finds its roots in the 1960s.  Issues regarding sexuality and gender norms are still unraveling in our culture today.  This revolution is also a revelation.  This, I believe, is a revelation from the Holy Spirit—a reminder that Christ is embodied.

            I have experienced a refreshing and liberating conversation regarding sex with Metropolitan Community Church and their ministry to the queer community.  It is at MCC that I began to appreciate a rich and Christian context to sexual expression.  One group called People of Leather Amongst You (PLAY) were particularly specific in attaching Christian virtues to their corresponding sexual ethics.  It is through the dynamics of sexual play and fantasy that the dynamics of faith and spirituality are understood.   This group demonstrates that there is a desire to link spirituality to the carnal.  It is through the erotic nature of sex that we learn to articulate our longing for God.  Is it necessary to recognize the carnal as inferior to the spiritual?  Isn’t it possible to recognize a dynamic equivalence between the flesh and the spirit?

            One anecdote that I like comes from the movie Opposite of Sex.  One of the characters suggests that sex is procreation, recreation and concentration.  He called concentration a biological highlighter meaning that the person he loves shines brighter than anyone else around.  By examining the different dimensions of sexual intention it becomes clear that sex in and of itself is not a vice.  In fact, if understood properly, sex is a virtue.

            Robert Hutchinson, editor of The Book of Vices, argues that “we suffer from a sickening overabundance of virtue.”  He suggests we rethink Aristotle’s “golden mean: neither asceticism nor self-indulgence, but moderation.”[41]   The revelation of the 1960s gave birth to new identities and modalities of living.  These mores are still being articulated today and equally being censored.

 Every relationship is a frontier for a Christian.  The articulation of this relationship is informed by the love of God for his creation.  The challenge of a Christian journey lies within the challenge to love the poor and the lonely.  This journey must move beyond gestures of charity to touch the very heart of Christ in the other person.  It makes no difference to me if the other person professes a faith in Jesus for me to recognize that Christ is still in the midst of us.  The act of love and play imbued with Christian values of dignity and honesty can raise the bar of sexual ethics without eliminating the sexual act. 

The articulation of a sexual ethic that includes the reality of sexual expression and the honesty of sexual desire within a Christian theology is possible.  Queer theology challenges us in this way.  The frontier of love, or the mirror, (whichever way you look at it) is a process of growth and transformation.  Love is something that is beyond gender.  The eternal nature of love calls us into degrees of transcendence.  This transcendence does not necessarily have to be asceticism but a deeper appreciation to the richness of sexuality. 

The pursuit of true friendship is the intention of heterosexual marriages today.  The spouse encompasses the four elements of friendship that Aelred wrote explicated: love and affection, security and happiness.  The institution of marriage protects these elements explicitly as a covenant and must be granted to all people.

[1] Prov 17:17 NRSV

[2] Prov. 18:24 NRSV

[3] http://www.katsandogz.com/onfriends.html

[4] Joseph Ratzinger, The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood, 2 ed. (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1993), 5.

[5] Baumli. Francis. Men Freeing Men.  Exploding the Myth of the Traditional Male. (Jersey City: New Atlanta Press, 1985), 104

[6] Marcus Tullius Cicero, De Amicitia, 44 BC

[7] Aelred of Rievaulx, Spiritual Friendship (Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1977), 47.

[8] Ibid. (page 54-55)

[9] Ibid. (page 51)

[10] Ibid. (page 58)

[11] Ibid. (page 59-60)

[12] Ibid. (page 60)

[13] Ibid. (page 60)

[14] Ibid. (page 61)

[15] Ibid. Note#43, page 61

[16] Ibid. (page 62)

[17] Ibid. (page 63)

[18] Ibid. (page 66)

[19] Ibid. (page 72)  Eccles. 4:10

[20] Ibid. (page 72)

[21] Ibid. (page 73)  Jn. 15:15

[22] Songs 1:1 NRSV

[23] Rievaulx, Aelred of. (page 75)

[24] Ibid. (page 76)

[25] Ibid. (page 76)

[26] Ibid. (page 76)

[27] Ibid. (page 75)

[28] Ibid. (page 78) John 15:13

[29] Ibid. (page 79)

[30] Ibid (page 83)

[31] Ibid. (page 91)

[32] Ibid. (page 91)

[33] Ibid. (page 92)

[34] Ibid. (page 102)

[35] Ibid. (page 103)

[36] Ibid. (page 103)

[37] Ibid. (page 108)

[38] Ibid. (page 109)

[39] Ibid. (page 109)

[40] Ibid. (page 118)

[41] Robert J. Hutchinson, The Book of Vices, ed. Robert Hutchinson (New York: Riverhead Hardcover, 1995), 3