Dan J. Brennan

Friendship-Leadership or Mutual Submission: A Review of David Fitch's The Church of Us vs. Them Pt 3

Deep within a theology of Christian friendship is a fundamental relational distinction between David Fitch's Neo-Anabaptist psychology and leadership through friendship. It's a huge distinction that becomes more and more valuable and meaningful the farther we probe into us vs. them antagonisms.

The distinction becomes all the more important when influential leaders like Dave who welcome and invite relational conflict into ecclesial leadership. Dave declares in The Church of Us vs. Them, “We must lead people in conflict. We must proclaim his lordship in and over every conflict.” He observes, “Leaders will see every conflict as the place from which the Spirit will move.” He writes, “Every conflict is a turning point for a decision.”

But before we go there, let's dive into David Fitch and the broader and bigger ecclesial conflict.

David Fitch and the Bigger Ecclesial Conflict

For any friendship-leader to probe beneath the surface of Dave's ecclesial psychology (there are other Neo-AnaBaptist models/theories out there besides his!), means diving into his theory of ecclesial relational conflict. My evangelical friend Dave is super positive that we discover Christ’s rule for peace in moving past the enemy-machine making “us vs. them” dynamics through his mutual submission model.

It so happens that Dave and I share a passionate interest in moving past the church of us vs. them. We also share a complicated relationship. Dave blocked me as a FB friend two years ago. He turned down my offer to meet face-to-face for friendship purposes after that.

As far as I can tell our gridlock is going to remain for the foreseeable future. Just like his gridlock with Larycia Hawkins. With Brian McLaren. With Christena Cleveland. With Justin Lee. With Joan Chittister. With Jamie Arpin-Ricci. With Brandan Robertson.

At least I’m in the same boat with some outstanding people!  

Just how far was Dave willing to explore the psychology of the evangelical culture of us vs. them? After all, he’s an evangelical theologian for Northern Seminary. Dave invites us all to “go below the surface” at the beginning of the book. But he can’t go too far below in exploring disruptive but Christ-like friendships when he gets paid by an institution that is steeped in us vs. them antagonism.

Our friendship history is precisely the kind he has chosen to write about in this new book. I don't know about you (am I the only one?) but again and again in my relationship with Dave over a decade, I have heard him criticize progressives and conservatives as two sides of the same coin. Haven’t you heard him do that? And every time he does his Neo-Anabaptist vision wins in an ecclesial winner-take-all-contest! 

I have heard my friend Dave say repeatedly—and it came with heavy emphasis in our initial clash—during our conflict that this was not a contest. This was not about winning. This was not about losing. But then, in a broader ecclesial conflict, I’ve seen him engage both progressives and conservatives as falling short of his evangelical Neo-Anabaptist “us” for the last decade. In this new book, he has a subsection entitled, “Jerry Falwell or Jim Wallis: What’s the Difference?”

In the broader ecclesial us vs. them antagonism, Dave’s Neo-Anabaptist self always wins!  

Even though this book has a provocative title with a complicated subject, it is not going to offer a constructive controversial breakthrough beyond the evangelical us vs. them culture. Dave is not reaching out to his ideological opponents (progressives or Neo-Reformed) in this book for revolutionary relational connections among churches.  

This book is for the Missio Alliance audience. It’s for Christians who are fearful of the Neo-Reformed and are doubly anxious toward the progressive movement. He proclaims the “lordship of Christ” and “mutual submission” over these deep-seated, entrenched conflicts.

This book is intended to pastor/shepherd those who see Neo-Reformed and progressive communities as undesirable options for deep ecclesial connections. He points us to John Perkins and Clarence Jordan for “examples of local church as politics.”

He does not point as positive examples the Saints and Sinners gathering where Nadia Bolz Weber used to pastor. Or the Refuge church where Kathy Escobar pastors. He doesn’t point us to Brandan Robertson’s ministry. Nor does he point us to controversial Catholic James Martin’s ministry toward the LGBT community.

The other thing that’s really, really important to note in this complicated subject is Dave’s missional approach to his “neighbor” stories in his books including this new one. There is no question he has this huge missional heart for neighbors.

If you know him, he shows up at McDonald's and nurtures relationships with neighbors. Or he shows up weekly in a local pub. As he writes in his new book, “our main goal is to simply be present to the presence of God at work in the many people who come to this bar.”

He writes about missional passion in all of his books. He writes in Faithful Presence, We should go into neighborhoods, give up power, become present, listen to our neighbors. This is the incarnational way. Ecclesiology (or the form the church takes) must come afterwards.”

He writes again in The Church of Us. Vs. Them, “This way of seeing the Bible and practicing the Bible changes us as a people in the world. Whereas before, the “inerrant Bible” shaped us to assume we possess the truth, now we enter the world humbly listening to our neighbors, illumined by the Bible to discern what things we can learn and see about God at work in them.”

He’s got plenty of neighbor stories in Prodigal Christianity while criticizing progressives and Neo-Reformed ecclesial leaders who are ecclesial neighbors. Ditto in Faithful Presence.

Now my friend takes on the “church of us vs. them” in this book. He dives right into the ideology of the enemy-making machine. That’s a complicated endeavor!

In his passion to know God’s presence he asks, “Can we find ways to disrupt the enemy-making machine ironically, perhaps by sitting with them, maybe asking a question about what is driving the emotion we see exploding in ugly ways, and then listening to the fears and angers that drive people’s lives?”

He states, “We meet people, no matter how broken or strife-ridden, already believing God is working and his presence active. We are never coercive with the gospel. We never sit in judgment over someone. We discern with someone out of deep relationship.”

What I haven’t seen in Dave’s life or in this book, is an intentional willingness to “give up power, become present, and listen” to his progressive ecclesial neighbors who have ecclesial power. You know, the ecclesial leaders who think differently than Dave in the bigger ecclesial us vs. them antagonisms.  

I haven’t seen him nurture a posture of “humbly listening” to Kathy Escobar, Brian McLaren, Larycia Hawkins, or Brandan Robertson. Just to name a few. But there are no powerful constructive controversial stories in this book where he is sitting with a progressive ecclesial leader “out of deep relationship.” There are no boundary-crossing affectionate friendships with ecclesial leaders beyond Missio Alliance in this book.  

I don’t see stories of Dave showing up at a Wild Goose Festival with a posture of not only “giving up power” but of showing rich friendship affection to those who think profoundly different about ecclesial power. I haven’t heard of stories of him showing up at a Why Christian Conference or an Evolving Faith Conference with ecclesial neighbors who are thought-leaders. I have yet to see Dave promoting Chicago’s Pride Parade or attending one.

In my mind, these would all be concrete stories of seeing God at work in the evangelical us vs. them enemy-making machine culture as evangelicals immersed in the bigger ecclesial conflict in North America.

Alan and Deirdre

Towards the end of the book, in the subsection under “Moving beyond Enemies in Our Politics” Dave tells the story of “Alan” and “Deirdre.” The names are in quotation marks because those are not their real names. This story and where it fits in with his book under this particular subsection is a fascinating one to me on so many levels.

I know the story. These two individuals were coming to Life on the Vine. I knew both of them. I knew Alan a little better. My wife and I hosted one of the church’s housegroups and Alan would come to ours. Dave takes a deep dive into an intensely personal conflict that emerged between Alan and Deirdre.

Now I pause for a second. We are nearing the end of the book. From the first page onward he has thoroughly entangled himself into the polarized atmosphere of the church of us vs. them culture in North America at the present hour. In this chapter titled, “the local church my politics” Dave introduces us to the Alan and Deirdre story.

This story follows the particular theme I introduced above in his books. This is not a story about Dave welcoming Doug Pagitt, Kathy Escobar, or Brandan Robertson into his gathering for God working out something beautiful between progressive and evangelical church leaders. The story fits with his ongoing practice in his books toward “neighbors” who don’t share the same ecclesial leadership power as Dave does.

It is a heartbreaking story where intense conflict emerged between a professional social worker (Deirdre) and Alan who was a recent widower with two young children. Alan’s wife had died. Alan was in a successful career practice. He decided to leave that practice after his wife died. He homeschooled his children and decided to earn a living as a handyman.

Deirdre started to care for the family and helped Alan with babysitting the kids. It wasn’t too long before Deirdre made the controversial decision to report Alan to Illinois’ Department of Family and Children Services. An intense disagreement broke out between the two.

Dave applies his submission model to the couple. He doesn’t want to get involved. He wants them to talk face-to-face. He presents their intense disagreement in the moment as a classic “I’m right/she is wrong” scenario. They refused to meet initially. But then agree to meet.

As Dave tells the story, she erupts when the pastors tell her that everyone has to “submit our lives to Christ” including her. That part of the submission for her is meeting with Alan face-to-face for the first time after this explosive bombshell happened and she must be willing to admit she could be wrong.

Just ponder that. Now, the pastors were saying the same thing to Alan. This happened to me. The same urgent appeal to submission in an intense conflict breaking out. Part of Dave’s mutual submission strategy means a straightforward, black-and-white application of Matthew 18 with this urgent appeal that everyone could be wrong. This is Dave’s sincere and thought out attempt to apply constructive Neo-Anabaptist psychology to an intense conflict.

Both Alan and Deirdre left the church.

Dave presents the ending of the story as an opportunity to think of his approach to mutual submission in the conflict is the way of Christ. Christ becomes present when we don’t bring a Neo-Reformed self or a progressive-self into an intense conflict in the church. He becomes present when we show up with an evangelical Neo-Anabaptist self.

I don't see anywhere in Dave's books where he shows up with this open humble posture toward progressive leaders with a spirit, "I could be wrong about you guys. I want to show up and be patient and listen." His model always wins.  

In my next post, I’ll share some thoughts about “friendship’s self in ecclesial conflicts.”

Friendship-Leadership or Mutual Submission: A Review of David Fitch's The Church of Us vs Them Pt. 2

Sheila, my wife, after I had posted my first post asked me what was my goal in this series. What would I like to see happen? Great question. My goal? Well, ultimately it would be great to see David move toward me in our complicated friendship.

Just for the record, I offered to meet with Dave one-on-one twice in our complicated friendship history, back in 2010 I believe it was and in the winter of 2017
after he blocked me as a Facebook friend. He turned me down both times. I recognize the complexity of our estranged relationship and I respect his freedom to turn me down both times.

But I also profoundly believe that friendship-leadership is a better way than the "evangelical us vs them" mutual submission model. I realize now looking back on that first smackdown Dave and I had I was not just resisting the immediate shoehorn pressure of Dave's mutual submission model, I was resisting something deeper: the evangelical us vs them antagonism in ecclesial leadership.

In my previous ecclesial experience going back 27 years, I had seen plenty of evangelical pastors make enemies in the middle of church controversies. I’m sad to say Dave was clearly one of them.

I thought Dave brilliantly identified some dynamics within the evangelical movement that nurture "us vs them" antagonisms. I'm on board with him. But blurbs on the book by Missio Alliance leaders? Dave’s friends? Why weren't there glowing blurbs by Larycia Hawkins? Or Justin Lee? Or Christena Cleveland? Or Brian McLaren? Or Brandan Robertson? You know, part of the “them” that he has been super critical of in his blogs and books nurturing an evangelical us vs them antagonism.  

I stated this in my first post and I’ll state it again. It’s not meant to be unkind. It’s just a fact. In the last thirteen years that I have known Dave, he’s one of the biggest proponents for an evangelical Neo-AnaBaptist “us.”

So, I was super curious to see how he was going to help Christians move past the evangelical us vs them antagonism between progressives and evangelicals. Then I sure was disappointed when I didn’t see any blurbs from progressives.

Friendship Beyond the Evangelical Us vs Them

Perhaps one of the most surprising (and provocative!) turns for me in my resistance to Dave's Neo-AnaBaptist mutual submission model eleven years ago was to explore friendship as a path for overcoming hierarchies, alienations, and hostilities.

 

Friendship-Leadership or Mutual Submission: A Review of David Fitch's The Church of Us vs Them

As soon as I discovered David Fitch was going write this book The Church of Us vs Them, I was eager to read it. As someone who has experienced “the church of us vs. them” dynamics from Dave himself, including Dave blocking me as a Facebook friend two years ago, I'm all in.

The only person I have ever blocked on my FB feed was someone I could have reported to the police for cyberstalking at the time. I have had some intense disagreements with some FB friends but I have never blocked any friend like Dave has blocked me.

I would like to review this as a friend of Dave’s—but as a friend who has been blocked by him as a Facebook friend. To be fair with Dave with and utmost respect, our friendship history is complicated. If I were standing in his shoes, I could see why he would block me. We have had a complicated relationship from August of 2008 when I was an elder in his church up until now.

But complicated dynamics among evangelicals is precisely the point he’s addressing in this book.

He has not chosen to stay at the shallow end of the pool. He has decided to wade into some really, really deep waters. Can evangelical ecclesial leaders like Dave lead us beyond the “us vs them” culture? Can evangelical leaders like Dave lead us to the space beyond the “enemy-making machine” into a powerfully new kind of ecclesial togetherness? Can his vision of mutual submission lead us beyond the immediate toxic polarization?

Rich Villodas, Tara Beth Leach, Alan Hirsch, and Greg Boyd think so. They highly recommend the book. These are all leaders I have a great amount of respect for. But most of them are tied to the evangelical movement, Missio Alliance. They're all evangelicals. Or to put it another way, they are all part of the “evangelical us.”

As much as I admire their enthusiasm for the book, what would have seized my attention would have been enthusiastic blurbs from other Christians beyond the evangelical “us” like Brian McLaren, Larycia Hawkins, Christena Cleveland, Father James Martin, Brandan Robertson, or Kathy Escobar to name a few.

For a simple example of what I mean, earlier this year, Sarah Stewart Holland and Beth Silvers' book, I Think You're Wrong (But I'm Listening) came out with Jen Hatmaker highly recommending the book. That grabbed my attention! I use this example in particular because one of Dave passions in this book is to lead Christians who are stuck in the enemy-making machine (progressives and conservatives) to consider what he describes as a “politic of fullness.”

Truly, truly, my friend Dave has chosen to engage Christians like myself to consider a complicated social subject. What he describes as the “enemy-making machine” in “the church of us vs. them” is loaded with landmines, complex disagreements, layers of antagonism, and personal/social histories. When I Think You're Wrong came out earlier this year it truly captured my imagination because it offered a deeper unity beyond our polarized postures on both sides.

 

Friendship's Mutuality: When Ecclesial Friendship and Mutual Influence Come Together Part 2

I knew it was only a matter of time before a female theologian explored ecclesial friendship's deep mutuality. I am so, so, so thankful that I know something of this rich blessing/gift in my church.

But it didn’t happen overnight.

Mutual Submission or Friendship-Leadership?

If you read my last post I may have given the impression that I not a fan of mutual submission. That’s not really the case. But I don’t think there is any question that in American egalitarianism, “mutual submission” became the measuring stick of mature/healthy leadership amongst evangelicals.

But the outworking of mutual submission bypassed a theology (and praxis!) of friendship-leadership altogether. When I found out that evangelical egalitarians were primarily using mutual submission in terms of getting women ordained, I began in earnest to look for women who were voices for friendship—and friendship’s deep mutuality—but who didn’t identify as evangelicals.

For example, Protestant Elisabeth Moltmann-Wendell wrote this about friendship. Notice the depth and breadth of mutual influence:

An everyday experience like friendship can break open the alienation and hostilities with which we arm ourselves. An everyday word like friendship can break down the hierarchies which cement our orders and melt the blocks of ice which have built up between God and us.

Friendships can entail effort and work. They are not always easy. But what then opens up under the blockages of alienation and mistrust or merely indifference changes us and our views of the world...Everything that we take for granted, the divisions that we suffer, the artificial separations that we maintain—friendship can change all this. To live in friendship is a process which makes us friendly and attentive, tender and precise, and in which we wake up to experience something of the secret power of God’s earth.

I can assure that this wasn’t the language of evangelical egalitarians and friendship when I started to explore theology and friendship fourteen years ago. Then I discovered that egalitarians—the ones who advocated “mutual submission” in praxis in ecclesial leadership—were pretty entrenched in the “Billy Graham rule.”

This meant egalitarian leaders didn’t go out to eat lunch or dinner with the opposite-sex among other things. And it clearly meant they didn’t go on road trips alone, together. At the very center of the rule was this male-centered unilateral opposition to all kinds of dyadic friendships between men and women. This also meant that at the heart of the rule, there was no freedom, no space, no “friendship-power” for mutual influence to go from the shallow end to the deep end of the pool.

Women could be pastors. They could say that they became pastors because of “mutual submission” in the church. But they couldn’t be friendship-leaders. They couldn’t lead their communities through friendship. They were pastors of churches. They were “women in ministry.” But they could not lead their communities through friendship.

Beyond the evangelical “mutual submission” model I came across a number of “friendship-leaders” who spoke of the breadth and depth of mutual influence in friendship. Of course, they didn’t describe themselves as “friendship-leaders” but they also didn’t hold back when describing mutual influence in friendship and leadership.

Ponder these words from philosopher Alexis Elder in her recent book, Friends, Robots, and Social Media: “Friends may thus have great influence on each other’s characters in both face-to-face and digital interactions, and if character is important to one’s ability to live the good life, then good friends will influence each other in good ways.”

This kind of deep imagination for mutual influence within dyadic friendship has been utterly missing within “mutual submission” models. Theologian Fran Porter in her book, Women and Men After Christendom describes Christendom as a historical era from Constantine onward.

She describes it as a particular kind of social order, a male-centric social order that embodied dominant-submissive dynamics (that included the Billy Graham rule as a norm in the 20th century). She describes it as existing up until the twentieth century. Women before Elisabeth Moltmann-Wendel, Alexis Elder, Joan Chittister, Marilyn Friedman, Carmen Caltagirone—all women I consider to be “friendship-leaders” could not write about mutual influence in dyadic friendship between men and women. It takes time to move past the old ecclesial order of Christendom. It doesn't happen overnight. Go back to my second post on Chloe Lynch’s book if you need to be reminded of that.

These friendship-leaders take us beyond the conventional wisdom and ecclesial psychology of Christendom. They don’t bypass friendship to get to the deep end of the pool and, most important of all for twenty-first-century ecclesiology—these female friendship-leaders claim a mutual influence in friendship.

Chloe Lynch is a trailblazer. She stands with these women. She’s the first evangelical theologian on this side of Christendom to give us a theology of friendship-leadership. I would say it this way. Lynch agrees with Alexis Elder. Elder as a contemporary philosopher and deep thinker boldly takes us beyond Christendom. Friends meeting face-to-face can greatly encourage one another moving from the shallow end of the pool to the deep end.

In fact, it is possible for two friends (including a man and a woman, or a male and female ecclesial leader) to know and love Jesus as an ecclesial friend. To know and love Christ as their supreme telos in their ecclesial friendship.

There is no greater love, that is friendship-love to help influence and lead men and women out of the social order of Christendom than friendship’s mutual love. In Jesus’ own words, he no longer calls women or men his servants but friends and we now are to love one another with that love that leads us out from a master-slave relationship.

Consider theologian Brian Edgar’s reflection on Jesus’ words in John 15:

It is as though the idea of friendship is preliminary to the more serious, mature notions of service and leadership, which are considered to be more appropriate for those further advanced in Christian life and ministry (Dan interjects friendship is for the shallow end, mutual submission emphasizing servanthood is for the deep end). But this is a complete reversal of the biblical imagery,” writes Edgar.

He adds, “Friendship with Jesus is a more mature relationship than servanthood.” And this is what Lynch argues for in her book. As I mentioned at the end of my last post, Lynch embraces mutual submission. Her book is really not forcing us to choose an ultimatum between mutual submission or friendship-leadership. She embraces servanthood as an important theme in leadership. But it is embedded in a greater telos—to know and love Jesus as a friend.

In her desire to resist what she calls “blueprint ecclesiologies” she powerfully points us to a theology of friendship-leadership, a mutual influence that goes beyond models of mutual submission stuck in the old ecclesial psychology of Christendom.

Knowing Jesus as an Ecclesial Friend

Men and women knowing and loving Christ as their supreme telos in ecclesial friendship is not about tweaking current evangelical mutual submission models. Perhaps a twenty-page paper would suffice if all we needed was tweaking. Lynch takes two hundred pages and gives us this great gift of a theology of ecclesial friendship.

As I pointed out in my last post, there are scores and scores of books about dyadic ecclesial friendships with no mention of mutual submission as the heart of friendship. On the flipside, however, there are a number of books that point us to mutual influence in dyadic friendships.

But American Christian publishers like Brazos and IVP have yet to publish a book that has a serious theological reflection on “friendship-power” between men and women in ecclesial friendships.

Such an undertaking would require more than a twenty-page paper!

Perhaps the biggest shift I have experienced in the past twelve years has been to no longer hear the words of Jesus in John 15 thru the lens of Christendom (dominant-submissive dynamics) but through the lens of ecclesial friendship (friendship-power).

Before I proceed any further I want to quickly make a comment to anyone who is reading this who might not consider themselves an ecclesial friend. You might be an ex-evangelical, a “none,” or someone who has not found a church home. Whatever might be the case, I believe “ecclesial friendship” embraces you, too. But here I want to speak to friendship-power among those who participate in “institutional” ecclesial gatherings.

One of the biggest blessings I have had in recent years is my ecclesial friendship with one of my best friends, Susanne. When we began intentional friendship eleven years ago, we were going to different churches. I forget the exact time that she started attending my church but we have been worshipping and participating in the same church now for at least eight years if not longer.

By all ecclesial friendship accounts, we have enjoyed a deep, intimate dyadic friendship. We have known mutual influence, deep mutual vulnerability, mutual responsiveness, mutual intercession, and mutual flourishing. Susanne was single when she joined our church but has now been married since 2013.

The intimate depth, the mutual cherishment between us is something that many in our church are aware of. I have yet to see an egalitarian theologian or pastor describe friendship with a member of the opposite sex in a blog or book with the depth of spiritual intimacy Susanne and I have known in this ecclesial friendship going on at least eight years. We both share a deep love for Christ, for each other, and for the other’s spouse.

There is clearly a sense in which our close friendship embodies a “friendship-power” at the deep end of our ecclesial pool. It’s not the power of mutual submission in marriage. Nor is it the power of mutual submission between pastors. Neither one of us is a pastor.

One of the things I loved about Chloe Lynch’s book is that she clearly articulates a theology of ecclesial friendship on its own terms and not through the eyes of marriage. So many egalitarian books address friendship as an add-on through a marital lens. Nor does she address friendship through an ecclesial lens. That too has been the way egalitarians typically approach ecclesial friendship.

No, Lynch addresses ecclesial friendship through Jesus and through a friendship-power lens on its own terms. Of course, she knows, she is very much aware of the vast number of ideas and books out there about power.

Let me put it in this way. I want to take some sentences from Laura Brown’s book Feminist Therapy. Where she uses “powerful people” I will replace with “ecclesial friends who know friendship as a power-with.” Below is not a description of ecclesial psychology embedded in the old order of Christendom. It points in a profoundly different direction. Also I inserted spiritual before intimacy in one place.

• Ecclesial friends who know friendship as a power-with are more interpersonally effective than not, able to have their desired impacts on others more of the time than not. They realize that they do not control others or the physical world and are able to accept the limits of power and control with grace.
• Ecclesial friends who know friendship as a power-with are capable of forming relationships that work more of the time than not with other individuals, groups, and larger systems.
• Ecclesial friends who know friendship as a power-with can create and sustain spiritual intimacy, can be close without loss of self or engulfment of other, and are able to be differentiated without being distant or detached.
• Ecclesial friends who know friendship as a power-with are able to decide to end relationships when those become dangerous, toxic, or excessively problematic for them, and they are also able to remain and work out conflict with others when that is a possibility.
• Ecclesial friends who know friendship as a power-with are able to forgive the humanity of others, but do not forget to protect themselves from people who are unsafe emotionally or physically to them. 

More to come.

Friendship's Mutuality: When Ecclesial Friendship and Mutual Influence Come Together

This is my sixth post on Dr. Chloe Lynch’s book, Ecclesial Leadership as Friendship. I am not writing an extensive or detailed review. It’s more like I am writing some reflections after experiencing a glorious fullness of mind and heart after reading her book. She has given us an outstanding theological and psychological reflection on friendship-leadership. I changed the title in this post. 

She not only has given the theological community a groundbreaking vision for friendship-leadership but she simultaneously opens a wide door for a robust theology of friendship between men and women! 

I think Lynch’s deep-dive into friendship’s mutuality blazes a new trail for friendship-leadership. I am so thrilled to add her to my list of friendship-theologians. When she said in her introduction that she was going to offer a theology of ecclesial friendship she wasn’t kidding!

Very early on in my egalitarian journey, I was highly optimistic that those who were evangelical egalitarians and those who were “emerging” at the time would be ready for ecclesial friendships between men and women. I thought some of the leading egalitarian theologians/pastors who claimed “mutual submission” to be at the heart of Christian marriage and church leadership would welcome friendship’s mutuality.

But that didn’t turn out to be the case.

At the deep end of the pool there was “mutual submission” for church leadership and for marriage. But friendship’s mutuality between men and women? I wasn’t an egalitarian that long when I got this huge message within a mutual submission model: ecclesial friendships between men and women were welcomed at the deep end of the pool insofar as cross-gender friends were in gatherings or groups of three or more.

However, any kind of dyadic formation of cross-gender friends that was for the shallow end of the pool. That kind of ecclesial friendship between a man and a woman had no "power with" or mutual influence at the deep end. It was “under” the mutual submission of larger egalitarian gatherings where there were chaperones, small groups, or church leadership.

 

Friendship's Fullness: A Friendship Scholar Questions Lead First, Be Friends Second Part 5

Why, yes, I have been raving about Dr. Chloe Lynch’s book, Ecclesial Leadership as Friendship on my blog as well as to my friends! I have been waiting for this book for years.

In every sense of the word, Dr. Lynch’s book is a trailblazing book. If you google “friendship-leadership” it will not lead you to books by egalitarian thinkers-pastors. It will not lead you any of the evangelical seminaries “equipping” women for ministry like Northern or Fuller. It will not lead you to any of the books
Christians for Biblical Equality recommend for seekers and new egalitarians. It won’t lead to the Missio Alliance blog or to any of the pastors or theologians who are the frontline voices for Missio Alliance.

Lynch’s bold imagination questions the hidden hierarchy present in “lead first, be friends second.” She takes three seemingly unrelated topics in contemporary egalitarian theology and invites us to know Jesus as our friend who is at the center of all three: leadership, friendship, theology. In a nutshell, that's at the heart of her Christian theology of friendship-leadership.

Going Deeper in Divine-Human Friendship

What is truly, truly special about this book is that Lynch has dared to enter what has been a thick masculine space. As a friend of God, she connects the dots between the incarnation of Christ (and therefore, the ground of divine-human friendship), Christian friendship's ultimate shared good—which is Christ, and the profound richness of friendship (neighbor-love) to influence others toward that telos.

Egalitarian theology-leadership will never be the same.

She makes a strong argument for egalitarian theology to include friendship in all future conversations about mutuality, equality, and leadership at the deep end of the pool. Throughout the book we read about “the deepening participation in the divine-human friendship,” or the “ever-deepening, ever-transforming participation in the divine love.” Friendship is clearly in the deepest depths with the potential to even go deeper!

But towards the end of the book, we see Lynch making this claim as a female theologian and as God's friend, “Despite this evolving, potentially ever-deepening nature, friendship is not enmeshment.” Here, is a twenty-first-century woman claiming the fullness of healthy friendship-leadership in the deep end of the egalitarian pool. Friendship at this end of the pool does not get enmeshed or submerged into ecclesial togetherness or ecclesial gathering.

There are so many points I can make about this “ever-deepening participation.” Ever since I became an egalitarian about twelve years ago, I have read a number of egalitarian books about leadership in churches, mutuality, equality, and unity—books that barely scratch the surface on divine-human friendship. 

Up until Lynch’s book, women who desired to be in ministry or felt called to be in ministry, or who were already ordained pastors had two possible paths for deep affirmation: either churches-seminaries that embraced the managerial model or churches-seminaries that embraced the servant-leadership model. Yes, those are broad generalizations but these two are the dominant models in church leadership at this hour.

If these are the two dominant models, it explains the glaring absence of theoretical reflection about friendship at the deep end of the egalitarian pool (and why it is wedged into shallows). Both church-centric models use the language of “equality,” “mutuality,” “kingdom,” and “leadership,” at the deep end with virtually no sustained critical thinking about divine-human friendship.

What could a Christian theology of friendship-leadership add to these two church-centric models? Women-pastors, women-theologians, women who desire to be leaders have experienced and known serious-egalitarian affirmation in these two models. No question about that.

It is precisely because these female leaders have received this affirmation, that we can understand the precious, precious attachment that egalitarian women (and men) can know and experience in these two church-centric models. We see wonderful connections like this in Tara Beth Leach’s book, Empowered and the beautiful connection she has with theologian-author Scot McKnight. I thank God for their connection!

In some sense, I can see why egalitarians who have experienced valued friendships within these two models would be puzzled as to how a theology of friendship-leadership could add any significant value beyond these models. 

These egalitarian leaders/theologians are committed to evaluating friendship and measuring friendship through these models. They know and have experienced this rich affirmation via their church experience or their seminary experience. There is a valued ecclesial intimacy they have found to be safe, affirming, and empowering.

There is no end of egalitarian books and blogs (go back to what I said at the beginning of the post) that interpret the meaning and value of friendship through a church-centric lens. Books and blogs from egalitarian leaders/theologians that hold to this hidden hierarchy within egalitarian theology (lead first, be friends second). Evaluating friendship through an ecclesial lens is one of the unquestioned core assumptions in egalitarian ecclesiology.

What would happen though, if a committed egalitarian female theologian invited us to seriously reflect on ecclesial togetherness/intimacy through a theology of friendship-leadership? In other words, what would happen if a female scholar looked at these two popular egalitarian models through the lens of friendship-power?

In this one book, Lynch blazes a new trail as a friendship theologian and as an ecclesial theologian. She doesn’t take any theological, sociological, or psychological shortcuts to get to the deep end of the egalitarian pool. She takes both friendship and leadership seriously. From the first page onward, she invites us to look at these two popular models through the deep reflection of female theologian who knows and enjoys friendship with Jesus.

It doesn’t take a long moment to recognize the power dynamics as Lynch turns the tables around. Immediately as a woman who reads these two popular models through the lens of friendship-power we see the power-over in the church-centric lens. We are totally aware of she has entered into the dynamic of power-over in the egalitarian culture-thinking. These two egalitarian models hold the sway of the spiritual/ecclesial power over any deep thinker, any theologian—female or male—who proposes that we use a theology of friendship to reflect on ecclesial leadership.

This couldn’t come at a more poignant moment for egalitarians. The leadership community that has flourished in those two models is reeling from the seismic waves in a post-Willow Creek world. Willow Creek, arguably, was one of the most recognized and respected egalitarian megachurches in the Western world—prior to the Chicago Tribune March 2018 article detailing accusations of Bill Hybels.

When Lynch reads friendship through a power lens, she introduces to us good theological boundaries for friendship that belongs in any Christian web of interdependence. As Lynch observes more than once in the book, there is no consensus about the meaning of friendship. This could be why egalitarians have opted for a church-centric lens to evaluate friendship through the last four decades.

But, but, but she insightfully notes there is no consensus in the church or even among egalitarians about power. Could it possibly be that a theology of friendship-leadership could bring significant insight into the issue of power-over, and power-with conversations happening in a post-Willow Creek world? Well, Lynch makes this important point: "power in groups is unequally distributed." Whoa!!! That is so painfully obvious to all egalitarians on this side of the Chicago Tribune article on Bill Hybels. The Bill Hybels who emphasized sacrificial love and servant-leadership throughout his tenure.

In articulating a theology of friendship-leadership Lynch gives us this great and powerful identity marker for Christian friendship. You treat your friend, you view your friend, you respect your friend as an end--friendship as an end in and of itself--and not as a means to some other end (church-centric lens). This brings a sharp laser light-focus into the heart of my deep disagreement with David Fitch who has consistently interpreted friendship via the church--a power-over lens. 

At the deep end of the egalitarian pool, this rich, basic foundational understanding of friendship can contribute to the meaning of shared power in leadership. Of course, this will profoundly shift the meanings of mutuality, equality, power-with, and power-over at the deep end of the egalitarian pool. This radically introduces friendship to be a part of a radical deep sharing of power. Thank you, thank you, Dr. Chloe Lynch! 

 

 

Friendship's Fullness: A Friendship Scholar Questions Lead First, Be Friends Second Pt 4

In this series I have been reflecting on the groundbreaking new book, Ecclesial Leadership as Friendship. Previous posts are here in part one, two, and three.

I knew it. I knew it was only a matter of time before a female theologian began to look at power through the lens of friendship. Explicitly, Dr. Lynch does not talk about friendship between men and women until the last chapter. In approaching her vision for a theology of friendship-leadership, she considered cross-gender friendship was a secondary issue beyond the scope of her book.

Implicitly, however, in the very act of Lynch pouring her fullest self into this book from page one she is also ushering us into the fullness of friendship between men and women. That’s friendship-power.

In order to swim at the deep end of the egalitarian pool—ecclesial community as a friend—Lynch insightfully and boldly takes us into familiar territory about differences in power. There is “power over,” “coercive power,” “power with,” “power for the other,” as well as “power to.”

As an egalitarian who has taken a passionate interest in “friendship-power” (especially as it pertains to friendship between men and women) for the past twelve years, my mind and heart were filled with joy as I saw Lynch embody this power in the voice of her fullest self throughout the course of her book.

She starts explicitly talking about friendship-power in chapter nine. But as a female deep thinker, I saw her critically reflect on the servanthood model and the management model through the lens of friendship-power in the earlier sections of the book.

Early in the book, it was quite evident that she was not going to passively accept the preconceived notions about power at the deep end of the egalitarian pool. After surveying a number of thinkers about the problems of servanthood, she concludes: "The shades of meaning now attributable to servanthood pose a problem. Not only has servanthood language become sufficiently widespread in contemporary Christian leadership writings as to risk losing its semantic ‘shock’ value. It has also become burdened by its association with oppression and professionalisation, perhaps even to the point of near-bankruptcy, being far removed from the sense it carried in the context of the NT characterisation of Christ as servant."

Now I hasten to add that when Lynch critically engages these two dominant models, she does it with the skill and nuance of a friend who has friends in both models. She sees positive elements in both.

 

Friendship's Fullness: A Friendship Scholar Questions Lead First, Be Friends Second Pt 3

In these posts about Dr. Chloe Lynch’s trailblazing book, Ecclesial Leadership as Friendship, I am trying to convey something of the fullness I encountered in reading it.

It is not my intention to do an extensive review of her book. I’ve tried to come up with the words or images that beautifully capture the profound richness of her theology of ecclesial friendship in the overall picture of contemporary egalitarian relationships and evangelical theology.

Beyond the Shallow End of the Egalitarian Pool

I didn’t know who Chloe Lynch was when I began reading other than the typical biographical information included in the book. By the end of the book, I had no doubt she has emerged as one of the foremost friendship-theologians in the twenty-first century. She is no second-class intellectual when she explores friendship moving beyond the shallow end of the egalitarian pool.

She courageously offers a critical reflection on “lead first, be friends second” unlike any other evangelical thinker (man or woman) I have read. I have read women who have dared to enter into a predominantly masculine space (theology of friendship). But I do not know of any female evangelical theologian who has invited us to go deep into the heart of Christian friendship like Lynch does in this book.

In this remarkable breakthrough for evangelical leadership, she takes us from the shallow end of the egalitarian pool into new shared depths. I use this imagery of the shallow end of the pool because egalitarian theology typically reserves mutuality for ecclesial togetherness. “Lead first,” (deep end of the pool), “be friends second” (shallow end of the pool).

 

Friendship's Fullness: A Friendship Scholar Questions Lead First, Be Friends Second Pt 2

“I have called you friends” (John 15:15). I’m pretty sure I have read over a thousand books quoting Jesus calling his disciples “friends.”

It’s in leadership books. Psychology books. Sociology books. Philosophy books. Theology books. Commentaries. Books authored by pastors. Books about politics. Books for men. Books for women. Books about prayer. Books about the church.

And, marriage books!

And, of course, books about Christian friendship.

How many books have I read by women devoted to a deep theological reflection on friendship and ecclesial leadership? I think I can count them on one hand.

By an evangelical woman?

Zero.

Dr. Chloe Lynch has dared to step into the void.

 

Friendship's Fullness: A Female Scholar Questions "Lead First, Be Friends Second" Pt 1

It’s almost impossible for me to describe the feeling I had when I finished reading Chloe Lynch’s Ecclesial Leadership as Friendship. She has done the unthinkable! Lynch, an evangelical theologian has given theologians an outstanding contribution to a theology of friendship.

She pushes the limits of Christian friendship as a new frontier for leadership with unprecedented (and I don’t use that word flippantly) boldness. But wait. At the
same time, precisely because she does this as a female scholar she provocatively points us to the fullness in cross-gender friendship!

At least part of my struggle to describe the fullness I feel about Lynch’s book here is her profound interest in friendship as worthy of deep theological reflection. My own interest in theology took an unexpected turn when I began to develop friendships with women. What do women think about Christian friendship? What are their experiences?

I’m pretty sure the first female author I discovered was Joan Chittister and her book, The Friendship of Women. Joan’s introduction alone fired my imagination about women’s thinking about friendship. It left me with a desire to read more about friendship including a hunger to know what women think about friendship.

My next female author I discovered was Elisabeth Moltmann-Wendel’s Rediscovering Friendship: Awakening to the Promise and Power of Women’s friendship. Her approach was different than Chittister’s. But boy, did she open up for me new horizons!!! To not only think about friendship but also how a woman can reflect deeply about friendship with God and what it means for everyday life and friendships.

 

Progressive-Conservative Intimacies: The Good News of Friendship and New Possibilities

As I write this, I am aware of some super progressive friends in my life, in my workplace, in my church, and in my FB feed. I’m also aware that I have some super nuanced conservatives or evangelicals (they would not self-identify as progressive) in my life, in my workplace, in my church, and in my FB feed.

If you google that phrase “progressive-conservative intimacy” I can assure you, Google will not lead you anything near Brian McLaren, Rachel Held Evans,

Richard Rohr, or Scot McKnight,  N.T. Wright, or Greg Boyd. You can insert any progressive or evangelical name with a huge following on social media or writes books that people want to buy when they come out.

Before I go any further, let's define progressive as any Christian who self-identifies as a progressive and "conservative" any Christian--evangelical, nuanced conservative, Republican who doesn't identify as progressive. Broad definitions. Christians who are caught up in the toxic culture between Democrats and Republicans.

I identify myself as a progressive and my wife is a committed conservative. She has voted Republican in the presidential elections for several decades. I have voted Democrat for the last three. Some of my dearest friends might not identify as committed conservatives but they wouldn't identify themselves as progressives, either. Let's say nuanced evangelicals.

I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say one of the most revolutionary lessons friendship has taught me in the last ten years: Friendship closeness--emotional, intellectual, bodily, spiritual closeness--in platonic or marital closeness--does not require a perfect match of political-psychological identity.

 

Friendship Wisdom: The Power of Opposite-Sex Best Friends Pt 2

I finished reading John Townsend's book, How to be a Best Friend Forever a couple of weeks ago. So many thoughts were swirling in my head! From 2004 onward I have been able to say that some of my best friends are my female friends. I'm not a fan of how-to self-help books on complex friendships. I realized a while back that I had not read this one even though I have read thousands of pages of friendship books. 

My other expected disappointment with the book was my guess on how he was going to treat opposite-sex best friends—as platonic BFs. Because I was
somewhat familiar with Townsend I wasn't surprised to see him crack the door for a man and woman to be best friends. However, I also wasn't surprised when he fell far short of spreading out the feast of shared best friendship wisdom between the sexes.

How could he pass up the opportunity to explore the unplumbed depths of friendship wisdom?

When I became an egalitarian precisely because my friendships with women around ten years ago,  I thought it was only a matter of time before I would see evangelical egalitarians inviting us to the glorious promise of non-romantic best friendships. I'm still waiting for that to happen.

What I discovered was that for egalitarian superstars, that is the bloggers-theologians with the huge following and writing the books, evangelical equality stopped far short of integrating the closeness of Christ's presence with the practice of opposite-sex best friendship. What was presented time and time again was this wonderful, beautiful, glorious path toward ecclesial wisdom/practices of drawing near together with no corresponding theological or experiential friendship wisdom when a man and woman was together, alone. 

The practice of opposite-sex besties—including two friends being together alone for a beautiful kind of togetherness—got no airtime. Or, paraphrasing 20th-century comedian Rodney Dangerfield, "the practice of friendship don't get no respect." This is the cast in the same mold pattern for evangelical egalitarians for years. David Fitch's recent book on practices Faithful Practices did not include the practice of friendship. 

I loved Aaron Niequist's new book, The Eternal Current: How a Practice-Based Faith Can Save Us From Drowning. But, it too, follows the same mold. The practice of friendship did not make Aaron's cut as a powerful—as in Spirit-inspired, Spirit-anointed, Spirit-infused—practice to be included in the book.

This glaring evangelical inattentiveness has become so evidently clear in the past eight months in reaction to ChurchToo reaching the egalitarian megachurch, Willow Creek. With no theology of opposite-sex best friends (for the rest of the post referred as BF) including no theology of a man and woman being together alone, egalitarian leaders have rushed to fill in the void of wisdom with repeated emphases on highlighting the nature of sexual assault, on the need for women's psychological safety, and women's well-being. All those emphases are absolutely necessary. 

Where are the egalitarian pastors or theologians joyfully stepping into the void of friendship wisdom the last eight months?

We have no paired friends claiming an Oprah-Gayle King like friendship with their cross-gender friend. There are no egalitarian theologians/pastors enthusiastically sharing pictures on their Facebook or blogs that show the kind of platonic closeness Alan Rickman and Emma Thompson enjoyed.  

There are no egalitarian bloggers with large audience platforms relishing in delight in carving out intentional friendship dinner dates with their platonic best friend like Cristina Perez does. Tell me when you have seen a cheek-to-cheek selfie on FB between two opposite-sex egalitarian theologians? Co-pastors? We have no egalitarian blogger (that is, an egalitarian with a huge audience following) lavishing praise and physical affection toward their opposite-sex BF like Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet.

You know that's true if you have been following evangelical egalitarians. Oh sure, there is a lot of talk about different kinds of friendships among egalitarian pastors and leaders. But best friends forever wisdom?  No glorious good news of shared friendship wisdom has emerged on this side of Willow Creek meltdown eight months afterward. 

I have learned this as a good rule of thumb in the evangelical subculture (including egalitarians). Take the most respected bloggers, theologians, and pastors. Friendship wisdom coming from their books, blogs, and churches will mirror what these leaders/voices have experienced, practiced, or thoroughly enjoyed. The entire sub-culture take its cues from the experiential "wisdom" of its leaders. We might call this the Willow Creek culture of egalitarian practices forty years in the making.

This glaring silence of friendship wisdom in the evangelical sub-culture at this hour means God has no immediate good news for two mature leaders who are good friends to have the God-given potential to become best friends--a wonderful togetherness of being together alone as shared trust, shared power, shared wisdom.

Expressed in another way: there are no delightful stories of shared wisdom of friendship energy between two opposite-sex best friends. Together, alone. No friendship energy toward shared solitude. No shared friendship wisdom of two good egalitarian leaders who became BFFs. 

Or expressed another way, we could say perhaps that kind of shared wisdom for evangelical egalitarians has been perceived as high-risk. There is nothing that quite exposes the evangelical anxiety and the feeling of high-risk behaviors than two opposite-sex BFs trusting each other together, alone as besties.

How far can two friends go? Can two good friends nurture their God-given potential to become BFFs? Does God's good news for contemporary men and women include open-ended friendship? No limits? Open-ended shared friendship wisdom for two friends who are good friends to become best friends? What kind of personal friendships show the world God's beautiful and wonderful shared wisdom? 

Let's visit of the cherished pop psychology myths Townsend challenges right off the bat at the beginning of the book: 

 

• He pushed back against the idea that there was only one kind of relationship that could be called "best friends forever."

 

• He challenged the deep-seated idea that BFFs were exclusively a romantic relationship.

 

• He believed that two friends enjoying a good friendship could intentionally take it to a BFF.

 

• He believed that within our friendship contacts among good friends were bonafide potential best friends. 

 

Over the last ten years I have come to the believe the surprising good news that men and women both share the power of friendship wisdom.  God-given potential to be opposite-sex best friends. Surprising in the sense of conventional wisdom that is found on the bookshelves in New Life bookstores. I have come to believe during this period of time that God's good news for us is that both men and women can share open-ended friendship wisdom to guide us to become opposite-sex best friends forever.

More to come. We'll explore anxiety, high-risk behaviors, and shared wisdom in part 3. 

Friendship Wisdom: The Power of Opposite-Sex Best Friends

Ever since the middle of the last decade when I could say a couple of my female friends were some of my best friends, I have hungered for friendship wisdom about opposite-sex best friends. That might be only a surprise to you if are a new to this blog. 

I finished reading John Townsend's 2011 book, How to be a Best Friend Forever last week. Although I have a voracious appetite for friendship books, I haven't had an urgency to read it because I was pretty sure he would not delve into opposite-sex best friends. After all, Townsend has a solid evangelical following and there are no books in New Life bookstores that address BFFs between the sexes. Popular evangelical authors who want their books to sell at New Life don't write about nonromantic BFFs. Power and opposite-sex best friends do not mix in the evangelical sub-culture.

My low interest in reading the book also stemmed from my ambivalence toward how-to books on best friendships. How is it possible to write a how-to book on a complex subject like best friends forever? The subject of best friends by itself is a complex subject that defies formualic approaches. But deep friends with no expiration date?  

I have read some great books on friendship over the past fifteen years. None of them are how-to books.

If you are already a fan of John Townsend's books, you will probably see a lot of strengths in this book. Even though I respect Townsend, I came to the book with low expectations. Perhaps because my bar was so low, he surprised me at some points. Although it would not make my top ten books on best friendships, I came away with an appreciation toward how he approaches the subject.

Since I still claim some female friends as some of my best friends years later, I thought I would share a few reactions that bubbled out while I was reading this popular psychologist make a case for best friends forever.

 

Post-Hybels: Friendship and Woman's Flourishing Beyond Willow Creek

I’ve got one more post in me regarding Missio Alliance’s August 13th link,  7 Questions All Pastors Need to Ask Themselves Post-Hybels  I wanted to see if one (or more!) of the self-awareness questions was going to explore friendship as a foundation for egalitarian ministry. I was hoping to see if one of the self-awareness questions was going to explore mutual flourishing in friendship between the sexes in pastoral relationships.

I was immediately curious to see if they would start asking questions beyond the common evangelical “avoiding evil” strategy when it came to friendships between the sexes. I wondered if any of these self-aware questions was going to address the unacknowledged baggage of the evangelical purity culture still lingering among evangelical egalitarians. I was hoping for some soul-searching questions touching on the good news of sharing of egalitarian power and the flourishing of friendship between a man and woman with no one else present.

When I first read Chicago Tribune article came out in March, one of my first reactions was that I was shocked to see Hybels—and Willow Creek leadership supporting him—throwing Nancy Beach under the bus. I didn’t know the other women in the article but I knew Beach.

I didn’t know her personally but I knew she was a longstanding pastor at Willow with high credibility. I couldn’t imagine being in her shoes and having one of the most powerful evangelical egalitarian men in all the world, call you a liar. This was one of the most disturbing things to me in the hours and days after reading that first Tribune article.

Push the fast-forward button to August 13. After the New York Times posted new allegations from former executive assistant, Pat Baranowski, at least ten women had come forward. Missio Alliance publishes these seven questions by respected evangelical pastor Rich Villodas. "All pastors” need to ask after the entire meltdown/resignation of Willow Creek pastors and elders.

No doubt about it, the questions were good. Don’t misunderstand me. Missio Alliance does not put forth shallow stuff. But there wasn’t anything deeply egalitarian about the questions. Ed Stetzer could have asked the questions! They could have been asked by Tim Keller. Even a pre-March Bill Hybels could have been on board with the questions as I mentioned in my last post.

For me, these seven questions reflect this sub-culture's (Missio Alliance, CBE, The Junia Project, etc.) lack of self-awareness and social awareness among egalitarians about power and friendship in the highest level of leadership. It seemed to me that none of these seven get into the heart of the relationships Bill Hybels would have had with each of these women.

These questions don’t even begin to explore long-term mutual flourishing between male pastors and the individual women he calls friends—whether they be a fellow co-pastor, his executive assistant, a woman in his community, or someone else on his staff. Looking at this through a friendship lens, these women were friends of God.  They deserved valuable, priceless, Christ-centered flourishing that Hybels never modeled to them. Back then, and up until now where he has never taken on the responsibility to attune to their personal flourishing.

Pastoral Friendship and Woman’s Flourishing Beyond the Evangelical Sub-Culture

For me, these questions reflect the biggest weakness in egalitarian theology among evangelicals: following the Bill Hybels-Willow Creek model for years: they lack a theology of friendship between a man and woman, alone together, flourishing as friends. Thirty years into Willow Creek egalitarianism. Years of Global Leadership Summit have not produced a theology of what it means for a man and woman to flourish together as friends, together alone.  These egalitarians never joyfully put forward a theology of gospel friendship in either a full-length book nor a series of blog articles inquisitive men or women who are not evangelical could turn to for inspiration, hope, and flourishing.

Of course, prior to March of this year, Willow Creek egalitarianism was the best, safest, and healthiest thing going in the evangelical community! Bill Hybels was the leader for the annual Global Leadership Summit. Even though he never championed intimate friendships (shared relational power) between men and women, evangelical egalitarian women from all over the world looked to him as a beacon and guide for what healthy egalitarianism looked like in churches.

Even his daughter, Shauna Niequist, a popular author, would write eloquently about friendship in her books but she, like her father, could not embrace the gift and discipline of gospel friendship where sexual attraction might emerge.

Now on this side of the Willow Creek meltdown, we know why. Shauna did not observe her own father model a radiant, healthy flourishing close friendships with the sexes.

Willow Creek egalitarian “fruit” has been hunkered down in “avoid the appearance of evil” strategy. This was a mixture of following the Billy Graham rule and asserting safety/wisdom (for both men and women) in numbers. Authentic, mature, healthy connection happened between men and women in the safety of numbers bigger than two either in small groups or church gatherings. Part of “avoiding evil” has been the unacknowledged baggage of these egalitarian leaders still steeped in the evangelical purity culture which is loaded with toxic masculinity. We’ll get into that in a moment.  

But ask any woman right now who is not an evangelical but an egalitarian—a follower of Jesus or an agnostic—if she would feel safe going to Willow Creek. Or she would feel safe within the evangelical egalitarian culture.  Ask any morally sensitive egalitarian woman who has not been a part of the evangelical purity culture (including egalitarians) if she would feel safe immersing herself into that culture now.  

One of the first women to inspire me and guide me to enthusiastically embrace flourishing in intimate cross-sex friendship was feminist theologian Cristina Traina. She was indeed a theologian. She was a committed feminist. But she was not an evangelical. She was never a part of the Willow Creek egalitarian sub-culture. As a Catholic ethicist, she inspired me to see that avoiding evil, or the minimalist strategy of do no harm, was woefully insufficient for mutual flourishing.

Love, she argued, promoted flourishing. Flourishing?? I imagine for some, “flourishing” sounds too abstract, nerdy, or academic. Out of touch with everyday life. For others, flourishing is an over-used word. Still, for others flourishing sounds open-ended fraught with too many loose ends and too many slippery slopes.

It’s impossible of course, to dive into what full flourishing in opposite-sex friendship looks like in a blog post. But she helped me to see there were virtues of one might call a positive psychology for shared relational power between men and women as friends when no else is around.

In the last ten years, I have longed for an egalitarian blogger or author with a “platform” (has a largely trusted audience-following a book publisher would crave for) to exude or relish about flourishing in an opposite-sex friendship. There has been no Cristina Perez joyfully claiming the egalitarian delight of having “friendship dates” with her long-time male friend even though both are married. There has been no Judith Orloff like evangelical female therapist gladly claiming intimate friendship with men.

There has been no Emma Thompson extolling the power of intimate trust with a male colleague in their friendship. There has been no highlighting the exuberance of a Leonardo DiCaprio-Kate Winslet kind of dyadic friendship among egalitarian leaders-pastors. There has been no Connie Zweig boasting of her intimate affinity and coffee dates with her male colleague even though they were happily married.

I could list other examples but what all these immediate examples share is this robust, radiant flourishing of an upward spiral of emotions shared between these opposite-sex friends who are therapists, authors, judges-lawyers, college professors, actors-actresses. All of the examples of long-term positive flourishing cross-sex friendships.

I don’t know now if I am connecting dots for you all, but these examples are powerful positive disruptions to the unacknowledged baggage of the evangelical purity culture among egalitarians. I specifically highlighted professional women who are all egalitarians but not evangelical egalitarians. In the evangelical sub-culture (Missio Alliance, The Junia Project, CBE, etc.) no professional woman who is married or single is joyfully permitted to claim deep positive emotions—exuberance, ecstasy, excess vitality, glowing radiance, or particular specialness—with another professional male colleague over their connection being alone, together.

Professional women who are evangelical egalitarians must be compliant with the unacknowledged, unaddressed shadows within the evangelical purity culture where toxic masculinity lurks right around the corner. It’s unacceptable for them to post physically close cheek-to-cheek pictures (like we saw with Alan Rickman and Emma Thompson) on FB as they meet with an opposite-sex colleague alone in an office, or at Starbucks or in a shared solitude kind of setting with no one else around. They can of course post deep affectionate pictures on social media of their female friends.

“Joy,” writes clinical psychologist Chris Meadows, “is the emotion which comes when one has grasped a good or fulfilled a strong desire that is crucial to a person’s own flourishing, the by-product of fulfilling his or her deepest yearnings. Invariably it comes to us without planning or effort, but in a situation which is a seed-bed for its bursting forth from the beauty of human relationships and nature. The experience of joy is a fundamental response to human possibility.”

In the evangelical sub-culture, professional women are not allowed to flourish with exuberant joy with deep gratitude, deep enthusiasm over an intimate dyadic friendship with a male colleague or trusted friend. They have to be compliant to the dictates of unexamined toxic masculinity within egalitarian leadership in seminaries and churches. Human flourishing—the shared relational power—in the dyadic quality of one-on-one friendship with the opposite sex has never matured or been liberated to mature in the evangelical sub-culture. They cannot exercise a woman's flourishing in the presence of another man without needing their husband to be hovering anxiously around.

In the evangelical purity culture, it is not just the risk of sex for a professional woman (or man) but it’s the ever-present pull of a negative cycle of emotions that will entrap her or her male colleague. If God is an egalitarian God, God is not pro-female flourishing in female-male spiritual friendships if you ponder the "fruit" of Willow Creek egalitarian power. I discovered outside the evangelical sub-culture that female flourishing—not just surviving in a male-centered community, not just “getting by” with “safe boundaries”—but a robust sense of female agency exercising self-awareness, discerning openness, relational maturity, emotional intelligence, and a wholeheartedness toward flourishing. Full stop. Imagine that! Women flourishing beyond the evangelical egalitarian purity sub-culture norms.

Love that promotes flourishing.

Perhaps evangelical egalitarians are reluctant to admit there is already a substantial conversation happening between pastors about power, sexuality, flourishing, love, and friendship. Cristina Traina gets into the heart of these issues (unlike any evangelical egalitarian book or blogs associated with Missio Alliance, the CBE, or The Junia Project) in two books for pastors. One is Professional Sexual Ethics: A Holistic Ministry Approach and the other is Soft Shepherd or Almighty Pastor? Power and Pastoral Care. I highly recommend both books as starters for a deeper egalitarian conversation happening outside the purity culture.

Intimate Prayer, Friendship, and Woman’s Flourishing

In the past sixteen years, I have had three long-term, intentional friendships with women where intimate prayer with and for one another was a part of friendship. One of those friendships, we are still intimately praying with and for each other after sixteen years! In another friendship, we started praying in 2008 together and it, too, is still powerfully alive, healthy, and flourishing. The other spiritual friendship lasted 9 years.

I will camp out here for the moment, just because I am comfortable in my own skin after praying alone together with a number of female friends over sixteen years. But understand I could make this point for a wide range of spiritual disciplines or practices: lectio divina, sabbath, solitude, hospitality, attentiveness—you name the discipline and practice—evangelical egalitarian pastors and theologians have not been on the frontlines as champions of mutual flourishing in the discipline of spiritual friendships.

Katelyn Beaty is a powerful voice for evangelical women. In a follow-up article after the Willow Creek meltdown, she felt it necessary for evangelicals to explore power: “But I’m not sure Willow Creek can honestly evaluate itself without having to completely recast the way it operates as a church. The Hybels story is, of course, about sex — how sexual desire, left unchecked, damages relationships, marriages and entire ministries. But it is, at a far deeper level, about power: how individuals wield it and how institutions protect it.”

One of her suggestions was, “Denominations should use vigorous, thorough psychological testing to weed out leaders who for various reasons can’t be trusted with that much power over people’s lives.”

Now, perhaps that is the way to go. But it doesn’t do justice to address mutual flourishing in cross-gender friendship with ordinary non-pastoral folk like me, or half the professional women I named earlier. Kate Winslet, Cristina Perez, Emma Thompson to name a few professional women who have discovered flourishing in intimate flourishing with male friends. Long-term intimate friendship flourishing.

It may come as a surprise to egalitarian evangelicals who have been immersed in the ethics and psychology of the purity culture to know there are women outside the culture who exercise their full agency in discerning full flourishing. They are not just dupes for sentimental gush in these cross-gender friendships.

Ever since I came across Cristina Traina’s argument that love promotes flourishing (probably around ten years ago), that has profoundly opened my eyes and shaped the way I pray for my female friend’s flourishing in their intimate hearing (no one else around).

I have known the joy and flourishing of mutual praying alone with female friends including female pastors. When we are friends of God, we pray for each other’s flourishing—obviously many times not even saying the specific word. In praying for each of my female friends over the years in their hearing, my attentiveness has expanded.

At the heart of those prayers had/has been my desire for my female friend’s flourishing. Not just surviving in a male-centered, male privileged world/communities, but flourishing. Not just “getting by” but flourishing—abundant life, well-being, delight, fullness, beauty, fullness of their human potential in relationships, voice, vocation. One could say that my theological telos of women’s flourishing has been radically altered as I have prayed with and for a female friend, alone, together over the course of days, weeks, months, and years.

Joining together in prayer with and for my female friends stirred a desire for abundant life and well-being in multiple contexts and in the changing seasons of their lives. But the ongoing and deepening desire in my prayers for them to see them flourish opened my awareness to larger social issues they and women were facing.

When evangelical egalitarians proclaim through their silence and avoidance that power and friendship don’t mix, how could strong women like Emma Thompson, Kate Winslet, Judith Orloff, Cristina Perez ever be curious or attracted to remaining, unaddressed toxic masculinity within an evangelical purity culture?

Intercessory prayer writes evangelical theologian Wyndy Corbin Reuschling,  “requires of us a willing attentiveness to how others in our communities and world are affected by such things as violence, economic instability, unfair practices, discrimination.”

She continues, “Intercessory prayer puts before God and other hearers the good and well-being of persons, believing that God is just as concerned about them as God is about us. Prayer draws us outward, and in doing so, it draws us into greater intimacy with those with whom and for whom we pray, perhaps even prompting us to act as an answer to prayer. If we see intercessory prayer as a form of speaking out for others, the connections with speaking out as an act of solidarity become clearer. Speaking out for others in public forums is a way of making visible what might be invisible, ignored, forgotten, or unseen in our contexts. It focuses on the good of others and appeals to hearers that the impact of our decisions and actions on others be noticed and taken seriously. It lifts up God’s desires for justice and contributes to speaking this kind of justice into existence in our communities by interceding for those whose life circumstances are constrained by our unjust and uncaring actions.”

Boy, if that’s the case, why aren’t we hearing more rich stories, radiant stories of special, close friendships, and shared history narratives from evangelical male and female pastors expressing heartfelt thanks about their intimate spiritual friendships with each other? Intimate prayers of mutual flourishing for their friendship and for woman’s flourishing?

Post-Hybels: The Dilemma for Evangelical Egalitarians Part 1

Scrolling down my Facebook feed last Monday my eyes came across a new link by Missio Alliance: 7 Questions All Pastors Need to Ask Themselves Post-Hybels by Rich Villodas. That immediately grabbed my attention. I saw who the writer was, and I thought maybe this could offer a significant breakthrough. I don’t know Rich Villodas personally, but I follow him on Twitter and he’s had some good tweets. He has become an evangelical pastor with a voice in social media.

Was Missio Alliance finally going to offer some deep egalitarian wisdom for pastors post-Hybels? I was hoping for a Missio Alliance post I could get excited about and share the link. I wondered if these questions would really probe into the evangelical egalitarian dilemma post-Hybels. I would like nothing more than to link some great follow-up posts that reflect deep friendship wisdom from the Missio Alliance on this side of Hybels. It’s almost impossible to overstate the dilemma/crisis for evangelicals at this hour.

I have a great respect for pastors and theologians hanging out at Missio Alliance. I attend a Missio Alliance church. I love our church. We have had a significant number of cross-gender friendship conversations over the past ten years. We have worked through a number of power issues in cross-gender friendships—in leadership and community. I feel incredibly blessed to be at Life on the Vine. I have the utmost respect for current pastors Ty Grigg and Juliet Liu and Geoff Holsclaw. I cherish them as leaders.

But I also know Missio Alliance as a national organization has never been on the frontlines (that is, it has never used its influential power in leadership) for helping men and women become more aware of power and cross-gender friendships. More to the point, it has steered clear of shared power—ecclesial, relational, coercive, socio-cultural, spiritual, and personal—between a woman and a man alone, together who are not married to one another. Including co-pastors in the same church. As I mentioned in my March 29^th post, google “spiritual intimacy between a man and a woman” and you will never end up at a Missio Alliance blog nor will you end up in any of the blogs by their recognized voices.

So when my eyes came across this universal claim “all pastors” I wondered if this was going to be a breakthrough post for Missio Alliance.  These were the questions put forth by Villodas:

As a pastor, am I living in the truth? Are there any areas in my life where I’m not living with integrity?

Do I have friendships that help me face my dark side?

Am I submitting myself to authority willingly, joyfully, and transparently?

What are the limits (time, energy, power, money) I’m currently violating?

As a pastor, where do I feel entitled?

Do I have seasons of therapy to grow in self-awareness?

If married, does my spouse have space to share with the leadership of our church how things truly are at home?

Much to my disappointment, there wasn’t anything deeply egalitarian about this post. Ed Stetzer, for example, could have written that post! Don’t misunderstand me. These are good questions. Stetzer is an evangelical leader with integrity. But as a Southern Baptist, he’s never made any top ten list for pastors who fully support female pastors or strong egalitarian relationships in the local church.  

Or, I am quite sure Bill Hybels himself could have been on board with the same questions before March. Remember before the Tribune article in March, Hybels was one of the most highly respected evangelical egalitarians in the world. He was the voice of the annual Global Leadership Summit where I know thousands of female pastors, female therapists, and female leaders trekked each year. He had so many books out about servant leadership, egalitarian wisdom, humility of heart, transparency in marriage.

He was a fully respected leader who had created this egalitarian culture within Willow Creek. Before March, any female leader could have bought his book, Authenticity: Being Honest with God and Others. They could have read, “Authenticity means consistency—between words and actions, between claimed values and actual priorities. Inauthenticity occurs when we claim to be one thing, but prove to be something else.”

Or they could have picked up his book, Simplify, “What inner hunger are you feeding that should be fed in healthier ways? If this type of reflecting digging has you stumped, ask a trusted friend, or a Christian counselor to help you gain insight.”

Or, they could read this in Simplify: “I write in my journal, asking myself hard questions about my actions, my words, my relationships, my character.” Or in the same book, they would have read Hybels’ list of red flags in choosing close friends. In this book, he talks about betrayal of close friends. He talks about experiencing “life-shattering injustices.”

Both of these books give a lot of spiritual direction toward a pastor or leader asking the kind of questions Villodas suggests we ask.  When I turned to this Missio Alliance blog post claiming all pastors need to ask these questions on this side of Hybels, I was hoping to see if evangelicals were becoming more aware of their own subcultural blind spots about power and friendships between a man and a woman. More specific, it has been a subcultural taboo for egalitarians to face power in close personal relationships with the opposite sex even if the man and woman share pastoral power.

Taboo: Power and Friendship

In my journey of thirsting for deep friendship wisdom between men and women, I discovered many male theologians (take your pick, complementarian or egalitarian) who could communicate the theories of atonement but none who practiced an intentional willingness to embrace an uncertainty, a vulnerable openness with a close female friend in spiritual companionship or friendship--alone, together. Deep, heartfelt, treasured friendships between the sexes are nowhere to be seen or out in the open for egalitarian theorists. How could it be that there has been no good news emanating from these men in power? Why aren’t we hearing the grammar of unspeakable depth and variety from these theologians who write about mutuality and love? You know, like, “Friendship between the sexes is too good to be true. It is more than you can imagine. It is one of God’s greatest gifts. My close friendship with ______is priceless.” How could it be that we don’t have male evangelical theorists proclaiming that Christ lovingly invites us to an egalitarian feast, to an intimate fullness we could experience, know, and cherish in cross-sex friendship?

Power and friendship between men and women—particularly men and women being alone, together—has not been a good mix or a virtuous mix for egalitarian theorists in Missio Alliance. Of course, if you know anything about patriarchy and female invisibility in friendship, you know this “bad mix” mirrors male invulnerability, male detachment, male entitlement over women in one-on-one relationships. Evangelical men (including some of the most influential egalitarian theologians/bloggers with the largest audience platforms) believe they are entitled to make the rules over women in personal relationships. Entitlement (including anxious fears about being alone with a woman for fill-in-the-blank reasons) is exercising power over women in all areas of friendship.

For those of you who know me, I have been more than happy to highlight or link stories of a man and woman delighting in friendship. I have been waiting for Missio Alliance to see when or if they were ever going to move beyond the Bill Hybels Willow Creek egalitarian culture. Female ordination—not healthy friendships between men and women—was the driving force for thirty years behind that culture. Shared power in friendship—alone together was never on the radar screen. Or it put it another way, spiritual intimacy between a male leader and a female leader, alone together. This is quite easy to verify. Google those words or language like that and you’ll never find links to Missio Alliance, Scot McKnight or David Fitch.

I was wondering if egalitarians were going to wrestle with subculture’s utter failure to come forth with a positive theology of a man and woman being alone, together. But first they would have to begin to show some awareness of the biggest voices with the biggest audience platforms for evangelical publishers have chosen old patriarchal standbys of male detachment, male entitlement, and ego power to stay clear of being alone with women.

Review: Why Can't We be Friends? Part 3

I have said some wonderfully positive things about Aimee Byrd’s new book on male-female friendship, Why Can’t We Be Friends? Go here for part one. Here for part two.

Now, this last post, I am diving deeper into ecclesial intimacy. I am grateful for her book. I hope it generates a deeper conversation about ecclesial intimacy among egalitarians and complementarians.

On the one hand, she’s reflecting on a platonic closeness between men and women that very few egalitarians have embraced. On the other hand, she’s reflecting complete detachment from men and women sharing intimate power in church leadership.

Reading her book brought up so many mixed emotions for me.

I was thrilled that she was unafraid to explore platonic intimacy.

But every time Aimee mentioned “church” or “ecclesiology” asserting her particular views, I couldn’t help but think of women who faced so many ecclesial-emotional obstacles to follow Christ in their gifting and calling. I pictured the face of every female friend I know who is a pastor.

The confusion continued when popular blogger Tim Fall posted an extremely positive blog post in the FB group “Biblical Christian Egalitarians” without offering any serious critique or pushback on this committed complementarian’s book. Every egalitarian who reads her book should have Tara Beth Leach’s chapter on “The Imposter Syndrome” open as they process Byrd’s book.

Tim’s positive, generous blog toward her book mentioned her theology without ever wrestling with any doubts about her theology of friendship between men and women. I have a great respect for Tim. But she uses the word “church” over 200 times in her book. Each time, its with the understanding she’s a committed complementarian.

I can appreciate that Tim and Aimee may be friends. I have female friends who are complementarians, also. So, hats off to Tim in showing his unconditional positive regard for her book and her ecclesial intimacy.

But I don’t think it does justice—not just a metaphor—full justice toward women who desire an ecclesial intimacy that Byrd says is off limits to them. She has no place for women and shared intimate power at the ecclesial leadership level. She never once has counsel for women in “office.” This is for “men only” (156). She has no space in her ecclesiology for shared or equal intimate power (friendship) in leadership between the sexes.

As I read through her ecclesial lens, I thought about female friends I have prayed for who were processing their interest in becoming pastors. I thought about my female friends who are pastors who I have prayed with and for. I thought about so many gifted female leaders I have met who would be forbidden to enter into Aimee’s vision of ecclesial intimacy.

In fact, when Byrd gets to make a case about identifying “false siblings” in her church, one wonders where that puts women in her church who believe God has called them to be ordained.

But this is where it gets tricky and messy for her. Can we just neatly draw lines between personal intimate friendships and an egalitarian ecclesial intimacy—meaning shared intimate power between women and men in leadership?

 

Shared Solitude: Top Ten Books for Men and Women Experiencing God's Closeness in Friendship

Another top ten list.

I had been alone with female friends hundreds of times including several road trips over the course of thirteen years when I came upon a particular phrase by sociologist Maria Markus that powerfully resonated with me. It was like one of those “aha” moments connecting a lot of dots. During all these experiences I have had with female friends where no one else was physically present it never, ever occurred to me to describe what we were doing with the two words Markus brought to my attention.

Maybe I am slow on the uptake, but she took me by the hand, as it were, and showed me the unfathomable depths of two cross-sex friends opening their selves to God’s boundless heart with no one else around. 

The phrase?

Shared solitude.

For all those years it seemed utterly foreign to connect solitude with intimate friendship. Perhaps the biggest block for me to see intimacy as shared solitude was my impression that solitude was first and foremost a discipline of silence. Although there were plenty of silent moments or silent occasions in my friendships, solitude as silence could not even begin to describe the wide range of intimacy with my female friends in the past thirteen years.

My second biggest impression about solitude was that it required isolation. That would also rule out all kinds of shared experiences with female friends where the language of desires, hopes, fears, frustrations, dreams, musings. and mundane reflections were front and center in our connections.

These two impressions about solitude discouraged me from ever making the between solitude and intimacy with my female friends. We prayed together. We ate together. We watched movies. We had all kinds of conversations; short, long, intense, vulnerable, lighthearted, joyful, provocative, brainstorming, tender, and mundane. We played together. We went to U2 concerts. We took road trips. Spoke at the Wild Goose Festival on two different occasions. The dyadic quality of my connections with my female friends involved being alone . . .together.

So, it never dawned on me to consider the connection between intimacy and solitude until I read Maria Markus’ essay, “Can Solitude be Recaptured for the Sake of Intimacy?” She briefly surveyed the history of solitude and how properly conceived, it is not about being cut off the from the world. Solitude was an intentional space for union with God. It was an intentional space for intimacy with God. It was a space for self-reflection for how one engages the world. It was a contemplative orientation where false expectations could be dealt with. Where desires could be engaged and discerned. Where compulsions could be named and released. Where union of God could be exquisitely discerned, cherished, and known.

But she was not intending to put forth a Christian view of solitude. Instead, she suggested that with the emergence of modern intimacy, there are two kinds of knowledge simultaneously occurring in a mutually chosen intimate relationship: self-knowledge/self-reflection and a knowing of the other. The self is continuing to expand, evolve, and grow in a mutually respected close relationship. She then proposed intimacy as a sort of a shared solitude where the two people can reflect and grow in their knowledge of engaging the world.

When two people voluntarily choose spiritual, emotional, bodily, and intellectual closeness out of mutual respect, reciprocity, and trust, these two kinds of knowledge are always operating; the friend's intimacy itself forges a sense of shared solitude as to how to engage their relationship and engage themselves. In this intimacy, boundaries of self matter. Self-knowledge expands, grows, deepens, stretches, and flourishes. Alongside this ever-expanding intimate knowing and caring and respecting the other.  

This has stuck with me ever since. There is no current robust theology of being alone together with an opposite-sex friend because we have no sense of a man and woman as friends forging this shared solitude, this sense of experiencing God's closeness in friendship with no one else is around. As friends of God, we learn together alone in shared solitude that our Divine Friend doesn't have poor boundaries as our Friend. It's precisely because we learn to know God's intimate nearness as a Friend, that we come to know the unfathomable depths of Divine Friendship indwelling our friendship as we are alone, together!

Now, none of these books directly mention intimate friendships between men and women. Oh, I long for the day when I could say these are the top ten books on cross-gender friendship! But these books have powerfully shaped my deepening awareness and curiosity as to what it means for two cross-gender friends to know the intimate presence of their Divine Friend is nearer to them than their next breath! These are in no particular order except for the first book.