"The intense friendship of the two Israelities, lasting till death, depended upon the willingness of each man to give for that which is received, to forgo self-interest, to convert separate identities into togetherness" writes Robert Brain.
If I understand what some Christians are saying in the emerging conversation, there is a fresh cognizance to pursue both Christians and nonChristians in authentic friendship. Mak is the one who most recently wrote on this although there are others encouraging authentic friendship outside the church as well.
"Jonathan is said to find himself 'bound' to David. Most literally the text reads, 'the soul of Jonathan was bound to the soul of David'...in the next line of the verse, moreover, Jonathan is said to 'love" David as himself (or 'as his own soul').
""There are many passages that seem to depict the two heroes' relationship as eroticized and sexualized in nature. Arguably, indeed, eroticized or sexualized language and imagery are present in all four scenes in the book of 1 Samuel in which David and Jonathan interact." (When Heroes Love: The Ambiguity of Eros in the stories of Gilgamesh and David, Susan Ackerman).
The view that David and Jonathan were homosexual lovers can't be brushed aside too prematurely.
Some commentators see "explicitly homosexual motifs in the description of the friendship" (Ackerman). The words of "love" and "delight" connecting Jonathan and David are the same words we find in the Song of Solomon. Issac loved Rebekah. Jacob loved Rachel. Samson loved Delilah. King Ahasuerus loved Esther. Elqanah loved his wife, Hannah. This is the same language, the same word we read when we read of Jonathan's love for David.
What is love?
The most common or familiar way to provide a "safe" and clear typology of love in the Western world is to divide it into the types of "eros," "agape," "philia," and perhaps "storge"(family love) and separate them into neatly separated conceptual and relational categories--categories that divide marriage and friendship intimacy into neatly defined modern Western categories.
Mak observed the other day, "One of the things I’ve discovered in my time in the church world is that church friendships are almost exactly like work relationships, except people see each other even more infrequently. This applies perhaps even more so to leaders - even amongst each other. Which means you’re “friends” or at least “friendly” as long as you go to the church. Leave the church and you can pretty much bet that’s the last you’ll see of anyone at the church."
I don't think its an accident that this also parallels the fact that many church leaders look to successful business leadership models. If friendship happens, they happen in "containers" within a larger philosophy of ministry concerning small groups or community. If deep friendship dyads or triads form, they are not looked upon as a good end in and of themselves, but a by-product of a much more broader aim: small groups or community. Could it also be that men (following the masculine stereotype in our culture) have also been admired CEO mentors of business and churches? It seems in the evangelical community we mentor and shape disciples to be comfortable with "acquaintance" or "functional" friendships.
In that light, I've been lingering over the story of David and Jonathan the past year or so as I write and research on cross-gender friendship love. By all accounts, there are two major friendship stories of love in the Scriptures and David and Jonathan is one of them.
Recent Comments