Running head: SPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP 1
Spiritual Friendship: Recovering Male Same-Sex Friendships in the Modern Era Presented to The Faculty of the Adler Graduate School ______
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for The Degree of Master of Arts in Adlerian Counseling and Psychotherapy
______By Matthew James Holley ______Chair: Richard Close Member: Meghan Williams ______May 2017
SPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP 2
Abstract This paper explores a brief history, overview and current state of male same-sex friendship in the broader context of the Christian tradition of spiritual friendship, specifically in the developed
Western world. The Adlerian viewpoint on friendship is integrated into this examination, specifically those aspects which correspond to the intersection between individuals and the greater community, as well as the connection to the suprasocial aspects of Adlerian theory.
Research presented in this paper indicates that the basic experience of friendship has become more uncertain with the increasing prevalence of social networking and the preference for immediate gratification rather than the intentionality that deep, intimate friendships require. This paper supports the continued study and encouragement of spiritual friendships as a viable option for males seeking lasting and rewarding same-sex deep friendships. SPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP 3
Acknowledgements Joanne Holley: My mother, for believing in me and being a constant source of
encouragement in my academic endeavors.
Carroll Franklin Holley: My late father, to whom I am forever indebted for his kindness
and insight and thankful for his lessons in thinking the best of people.
Anna Holley: My sister, for supporting me throughout this exacting writing process and
believing in me achieving my goals.
Megan Holley: My sister, for her tenacity in enduring all my stress while writing this
paper.
Daniel McClure: For your constant encouragement and modeling of what spiritual
friendship looks like in real-life. I am forever indebted to your friendship and your
support.
Joshua McClure: For all your encouragement and being an excellent model of a
spiritual friend.
RicTerrio "Ricky" Anderson: For your unrelenting friendship and support.
Nathan Kashak: For all the opportunities to practice what I have learned about friendship.
Charles Packard: For your friendship throughout the years. You are an inspiration in
tenacity and determination for me.
SPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP 4
Table of Contents
Introduction ...... 6 Definition of Terms ...... 8 Friendship ...... 10 Defining Friendship...... 10 Adler and Friendship...... 13 Friendship and Social Interest ...... 13 Friendship and Community Feeling...... 15 History of Friendship in the Classics ...... 15 Eudaimonia ...... 15 Aristotle’s three kinds of friendship ...... 17 Cicero’s Laelius de Amicita ...... 18 Comparisons to Aristotle and Cicero...... 20 Male Same-Sex Friendship ...... 20 Benefits of Male Same-Sex Friendship ...... 20 Importance for mental and emotional health ...... 20 Importance as a place of trust ...... 23 Value of robust same-sex friendships ...... 23 Modern Male Same-Sex Friendship ...... 24 Cultural expectations of masculinity ...... 24 Mythologizing same-sex sexuality ...... 26 Acceptance of male same-sex friendships ...... 28 Same-sex expressions of affection ...... 32 Spiritual Friendship ...... 33 History of Spiritual Friendship ...... 33 Basis in Christian tradition ...... 33 Value of Spiritual Friendship ...... 42 Individual Benefits of Spiritual Friendship ...... 42 Societal Benefits of Spiritual Friendship ...... 44 Technology's Impact on Spiritual Friendship ...... 45 Social Media ...... 45 SPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP 5
Virtual connections ...... 45 Virtual social connections ...... 47 Electronic supplanting of friends ...... 47 Loneliness in modern Western society ...... 49 Conclusion ...... 50 References ...... 52
SPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP 6
Spiritual Friendship: Recovering Male Same-Sex Friendships in the Modern Era
Introduction
Human beings are fundamentally social creatures, with complex rules and guidelines for social behavior and interactions. One of the most essential aspects of what it means to be fully human is to have friends. Friendship has been a fundamental relationship since the beginning of
Western civilization and is a relationship toward which everyone is disposed towards by their very nature as social beings. It is universally regarded as being worthy of cultivation, regardless of an individual’s culture, age, sex, or religious affiliation. Friendship, unlike various other relational commitments, is wholly voluntary, unconstrained and uncoerced by any sense of obligation or duty. This makes friendship a uniquely mysterious, special and rewarding type of relationship; it is one of the greatest gifts of life, without which humanity would be impossibly impoverished. The particular uniqueness of friendship is that it is a completely unconstrained affection which would be deemed unnatural if viewed in a purely evolutionary manner (Lewis,
1960/2004).
Friendships are built on the foundation of a shared truth, one which both members perceive that others do not. This joins them in a unique and exclusive way, with the relationship distinguished from others by this mutual exclusivity, but also in the shared affection they take in each other's company. This shared truth can take many forms; it may be a shared interest in a sport or popular entertainment franchise, but it binds those who are friends in a manner that it does not with others. This basis for friendship has been many things, but perhaps the strongest and most enduring types are those among Christians which are built on the foundation of a shared reverence for Christ. These friendships are considered sacred, to the point where if one SPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP 7 decided to forsake the vows of confidentiality inherent within the friendship, the other should remain faithful out of reverence of the sacred nature of the vow itself (Schroeder, 2007).
In the twelfth century, Abbot Aeldred of Rievaulx distinguished between three types of friendship; carnal friendship was based on the shared pursuit of pleasure, worldly friendship was based on mutual advantage, while spiritual friendship, which Aeldred believed was the deepest and truest depiction of friendship itself, was based on a mutual commitment between the friends to follow Christ as companions. While the previous types of friendship are most common in the world, Aelred did not condemn them, viewing them as good, if incomplete, reflections of the original intent of friendship (Roberts, 2013). Within a Christian context, these would be what are known as natural friendships, consisting of empathy, natural affection and the apprehension of some form of virtue. These types of friendships are the foundation, to some extent, for nearly all other relational ties.
Within the social framework of the modern world, the encouragement and space to form lasting, deep, emotionally intimate friendships between individuals, particularly males, has been all but lost. The increasingly technologically-based means of communication, interaction and pseudo-intimacy have gradually shaped how we as humans perceive the concept of friendship.
Among males, this is further complicated by various societal and cultural pressures, expectations and norms that have been institutionalized and accepted fairly recently and quickly by the surrounding culture as an expectation of males' emotional expressiveness, as well as their interest and ability to form close bonds with other males outside of certain societally proscribed contexts.
Within this paper, the history of friendship, its modern expression and the impact this has had on the lives of males in particular will be examined. A proposed solution to this deficiency of meaningful same-sex friendships is educating society on the lasting, deep friendships that SPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP 8 once were common, which arguably can be best accomplished through a reexamination and reclamation of the exercise of spiritual friendship as a beneficial type of friendship.
Definition of Terms Adelphopoiesis - Also known as 'brother-making'; a rite within the Orthodox Church that unites
together two people of the same-sex in a church-recognized friendship and is an overlap
of agape and philia love, but not erôs
Acquaintance - A person recognized by sight or is known, though not intimately
Agapé - The highest form of love, the love of God for humankind and of humankind for God.
Belonging - The Adlerian concept of the motivating force of social interest.
Community Feeling - The Adlerian concept of self-transcendence; the spiritual aspect of
Adlerian psychology.
Companionship - The cooperation, mutual respect and understanding among same-sex groups
who share a common interest or purpose.
Erôs - Romantic love or love of a sexual nature.
Eudaimonia - A contented state of being healthy, happy and prosperous.
Friendship - A relationship of mutual affection between two or more people.
Gender -The state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural
differences rather than biological).
Heteronormative - Denoting or relating to a world view that promotes heterosexuality as the
normal or preferred sexual orientation.
Homosociality - Same-sex relationships that are not of a romantic or sexual nature.
Inclusive Masculinity - A proposed expression of masculinity which encourages increased
emotional intimacy, physical tactility, the eschewal of violence and the social inclusion of
gay male peers. SPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP 9
Natural Friendship - A mutual attraction between two individuals based on a shared bond and
affection which can be cultivated by human effort.
Philia - An affection that denotes friendship, brotherhood or generally non-sexual attraction.
Platonic love - A type of love that is celibate and non-sexual.
Same-Sex Intimacy - A relationship between individuals of the same-sex which contains self-
disclosures, emotional expressiveness, unconditional support, physical contact and trust,
but not sexual contact.
Social Media - Websites and applications that enable users to create and share content or to
participate in social networking.
Spiritual Friendship - A natural affection between two persons united in their friendship in
Christ through the love of God and desire to live a lifestyle of virtue and holiness.
Supernatural Friendship - A purified friendship, centered in Christ, possessing an unrelenting
desire for God and the sharing of all things, spiritual and material.
Virtual Friendship - A form of friendship which exists primarily through social media instead
of direct contact.
SPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP 10
Friendship
Defining Friendship The meaning of the word friend originates from the Old English frēond, which is a present participle from the Teutonic frijôjan, which means “to love” (Schreoder, 2007). The Old
English definition included both the relationships of lover and relative within the use of the term, indicating an acceptance of intimacy and familiarity that is uncommon in the modern era. The contemporary definition of friendship describes it as “a state of being friends” (Friend, n.d.).
While this definition suffices for a basic functional description of the relationship, it does not adequately depict the essential experiences friendship contains, as well as lacking the nuance and specificity that such a relationship between two individuals contains. It can be argued that a more thorough definition of friendship is the amalgamation of social experiences originating from socially structured mutual human interactions of a personal and intimate nature; these interactions encouraging frequent conversation and shared understanding within an atmosphere of comfort and cooperation while both individuals engaged in the friendship intentionally sustain and renew the interactions for their personal value (Brennan, 1966).
Modern society tends to understand friendship, particularly male friendship, as being a loose collection of "buddies", limiting their understanding of friendship to a relationship based on shared pleasure or status and offering very little sharing or emotional support, such as drinking buddies or hunting partners. This reduction of male same-sex friendship limits males to engaging with others exclusively around shared interests that are expected of them or in a status seeking competitive framework that encourages competition rather than cooperation. Lewis SPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP 11
(1960/2004) defined these types of relationships as "companionship", and viewed them as a gateway to an actual friendship. While these relationships have a legitimate shared connection between the companions, true friendship demands a deeper level of intimacy and understanding between those engaged, defined as a shared bond that unites the pair and joins them together at a more intimate level than that of mere companionship (Lewis, 1960/2004). True friendship requires time to develop and to get to know another person, developing a level of trust that encourages the sharing of one's self, struggles and secrets in a safe and supportive relationship.
In contrast to the modern depictions and assumptions of what friendship is, the original
Old English definition more fully encompasses what the experience of friendship is intended to be. This more comprehensive and arguably more accurate meaning should be actively sought out, recovered and restored to practice within a modern context. Without a foundation of mutual love, a friendship cannot survive and thrive throughout the stresses and tribulations it will face in this life. True friendship is a relationship that is arguably just as important as that of the closest bonds between family or spouses and should be treated and cared for as such.
Friendship possesses numerous distinct characteristics which set it apart from other types of relationships. There is no exhaustive compilation of these and they may differ in order of importance based on individuality, but the following seven would be essential for any true and deep friendship to exist: (a) friendship begins with a mutual attraction; (b) friends like one another; (c) friends enjoy each other's company and spending time together; (d) friendships are freeing, helping us to be our best selves; (e) friendships contain benevolence, consistently seeking the good of each other; (f) friendships have mutuality, reciprocating affection and care;
(g) friendships are built around shared goods which define the friendship and give it purpose; and (h) friendships have trust and faithfulness (Wadell, 2002). SPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP 12
While Lewis's own depiction of friendship was undoubtedly shaped by his upbringing and culture; resulting in a friendship that appeared more taciturn, introverted and shy than other cultures would deem friendship to appear, it nevertheless had strong elements that he would have considered "entangling", indicating he never managed to quite achieve his ideal of an "affair of disentangled, or stripped, minds" (Lewis, 1960/2004). He became close friends with Arthur
Greeves when they were boys as they bonded over a shared love of Norse mythology. He remained in close contact with him throughout his life and their shared correspondence indicated a consistently deep level of intimacy and affection between the two men, despite the later geographical distance between them, a disparity of intellect and various disagreements (Hill,
2015). Indeed, during the final year of Lewis's life, his last letter to Greeves ended with regret that they would not see each other again in this life. Their friendship included essentials such as frequent contact, reciprocal self-disclosures, a healthy amount of humor and a familiarity which deepened with passing years. It is notable that his friendship with Greeves was apparently contradictory regarding his published determination that friendship and romantic attraction be held resolutely apart. This is in no way a critique or supposition on the very thing Lewis was against; it is simply indicative that healthy Christian friendships can arguably hold an degree of affection that borders on the romantic to the modern observer, which is more of an indictment as to how far modern society and culture has strayed from the original definition of friendship than a commentary on the expression of chaste affection between same-sex male friends.
Within the Christian tradition, a unique form of friendship known as spiritual friendship was common among both monks and laypersons of the faith, particularly in the medieval era.
This bond of friendship was seen as the apex of shared life between Christians, as it was a union of mind, heart and wills united through a shared faith in Christ. It was distinguished by shared SPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP 13 affection, equality, a sacred trust of confidentiality and the recognition and joyful acceptance that one’s spiritual friends could act as “medicine of life” (Schroeder, 2007). This form of friendship is also uniquely compatible with Adler's own views on friendship; namely the belief that friendships can only be experienced through interactions with others in a social context, a climate of equality is nurtured and encouraged and the friendship is intentionally sustained and continuously renewed through the loyalty of the participants to each other as persons of value.
All of these attributes are reflective within spiritual friendship, but arguably to a degree that is deeper and more enduring than that which is found strictly in the natural sense.
Spiritual friendship is also highly compatible with the more metaphysical aspects of
Adlerian theory, as depicted in his later examinations of community feeling (Ansbacher, 1992).
The restoration of spiritual friendship as an actualized possibility for people, especially males, would go to great lengths to encouraging and developing lasting friendships of deep intimacy and would aid in repairing many of the difficulties and challenges that have surrounded friendship in the past century.
Adler and Friendship
Friendship and Social Interest
Friendship is a central aspect of Alfred Adler's Individual Psychology, as depicted in his explanation of the life tasks. The primary life tasks are composed of work, sociality and sex or love, with two proposed others consisting of self-identity and spirituality. These are the common challenges of life with which all individuals must cope and find solutions to, if they are to fully engage in the business of human community (Ansbacher & Ansbacher, 1956). From the earliest iterations of Individual Psychology, Adler determined that all life tasks were interwoven, with each demanding the successful addressing of the others in order to work (Dreikurs, R. & Mosak, SPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP 14
H.H, 1966). The inclusion of friendship as a life task is inextricably connected to several central tenants of Individual Psychology, namely social interest, belonging and cooperation. All of the life tasks have the building and maintaining of relationships as their foundational element, therefore, the task of friendship is arguably intrinsic to all of them. While a challenging relationship to forge, the creation of bonds of friendship can undoubtedly improve other life tasks that present difficulties and can provide a mitigating influence when difficult circumstances or life stressors arise (Baumeister & Leary, 1995).
The life task most relevant to the issue of modern friendships is the task of working and living with other people, also known as sociality. This particular life task is one which many modern adults find challenging, as the social demands of interaction are increasingly pushed aside or neglected for the work task in an increasingly fast-paced and technologically structured modern life, often to the detriment of functioning both personally and affecting the broader society. According to Adler, the social life task is foundational to the task of being human itself, as individuals cannot be understood without taking their interactions with others into account
(Ansbacher & Ansbacher, 1956). Modernity always tends towards what is efficient and convenient; avoiding what can take more time and effort to accomplish, but is ultimately far more rewarding. This type of lifestyle is anathema to establishing true intimacy with others, which is absolutely crucial in forming and maintaining lasting friendships between individuals.
Community is essential to what it means to be human, with all of our reactions and development being formed within a social matrix, even if it is entirely through internal comparisons with others (Mosak & Maniacci, 1999). This foundational interaction forms the basis of what later becomes friendship with a select few, those we have deemed valuable and desirable to allow into a closer relationship with. While there is a transactional element at work in these relationships, SPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP 15 they are not defined by them; rather they are based on a more equitable interaction between those who both enjoy each others' company and seek the other's well-being.
Friendship and Community Feeling.
While the Adlerian concepts of social interest and community feeling are often depicted as synonymous, there has been some disagreement on this. A persuasive case can be made to distinguish them as distinct aspects of Adler's intended interpretation of Gemeinschaftsgefül.
While social interest is the area of Adlerian theory, which concentrates on the socially useful movement between individuals and the wider community, community feeling is the area of
Adlerian theory which not only encompassed the action of social interest, but also the metaphysical social reality in which we live. According to Adler, social interest is "the action line of community feeling" (Ansbacher, 1992, p. 405), separating them into the transcendental aspect of community feeling and the daily, more practical action of community feeling being lived out by individuals of social interest. This is further supported by the indication that Adler viewed community feeling as both subsocial (such as nature, art, and science) and suprasocial
(comprising union with life as a whole or feeling at one with the universe). Community feeling, therefore, refers in part to a spiritual aspect of Adlerian theory which is often ignored or explained away in contemporary psychology. This spiritual component of Adlerian psychology is one which is very compatible with each of the three types of friendship: natural friendship, supernatural friendship and the philosophy of spiritual friendship presented by Abbot Aelred of
Rievaulx (Aelred, 1164-1167/2010).
History of Friendship in the Classics Eudaimonia. In order to properly assess the role friendship played in the philosophies of classical authors, specifically Aristotle, it is necessary to explain what the driving factor was behind it. This originated in the Greek word eudaimonia. Eudaimonia was a central concept SPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP 16 within Aristotelian ethics and philosophy which referred to the proper actions that resulted in the well-being of an individual, commonly defined as “happiness”, although “flourishing” would be more accurate. This happiness was defined as ultimately achieving all the goods, such as health, knowledge, wealth, friends, social status, that were considered to lead to the perfection of human nature and the enrichment of life. According to Aristotle in the Nichomachean Ethics, Book I, an individual's achievement of this state could only be accurately measured once the totality of one's life was assessed, as the achieving of eudaimonia was the result of decades of developing and exercising those virtues to which one was predisposed.
In Adlerian terms, this would be roughly analogous to the final goal of an individual, as it was their basis of oriented the world around them and has shaped their life to that moment
(Ansbacher & Ansbacher, 1956) . Eudaimonia encouraged those activities which reflected virtue, excellence, and the full development of an individual's potential, as one could not be eudaimonic while squandering a talent they possessed (Huta & Waterman, 2013). Aristotle considered eudaimonia as encompassing the rational activity of the soul in accordance with virtue within an active life, defined as good moral character being consistently exercised. Virtue was defined by Aristotle as a trait of mind or character which aided in achieving a good life; that is to say, a life according to reason. Such qualities would include being kind or courageous.
These qualities make that which possesses them to be considered 'good' and able to perform its characteristic activity well.
One of the most important virtues to cultivate in order to achieve eudaimonia was that of friendship. According to the Niomachean Ethics, Book I, Aristotle believed that one was unable to contemplate their own virtue and so required the virtuous activity of a friend in order to do so.
While this may seem calculating, Aristotle believed that the best friendship was a mutual SPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP 17
"character-friendship" in which each friend's virtue was reflected by the other, thereby encouraging each other's own virtues and leading to a friendship which built one another up, pushing them toward higher states of goodness. He believed that true friendship was more concerned with loving the other person and wanting what was best for them; by doing so, this would increase virtue in the both individuals.
Aristotle’s three kinds of friendship. Aristotle, according to the Nicomachean Ethics,
Book VIII, observed friendship distinctly divided into three types. The first type was based on utility, where each person derives some benefit from each other. Aristotle viewed this type of friendship as shallow, as it was easily broken and based on some good or usefulness brought into the relationship by one person. The second type was based on pleasure, where each was drawn to the other's wit, appearance or other qualities they found desirable. This type of friendship was also considered transient by Aristotle, as it was based in the immediate pleasure that both individuals received from the friendship. The third type of friendship was based on a shared appreciation of virtue and it was this friendship that Aristotle believed was the most beneficial to achieving eudaimonia and the most enduring. Aristotle's third type of friendship, also known as friendship of the good or philia, was based on a shared appreciation of goodness between the friends while also encompassing the previous types of friendship. This type of friendship resulted in a long-lasting relationship between individuals which was based on the pursuit of valuing loving over being loved, resulting in both friends pursuing each other's goodness over their own.
According to Aristotle, this type of friendship was essential to a life worth living well, even though it was rare and took time to develop. This form of love not only loved the good with on others for its own sake, but also exhibited a conscious goodwill and mutual affection that was SPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP 18 mutually reciprocated. Aristotle would have concurred with Adler in that friendship of the good is based on empathy or Gemeinschaftsgefül (Linden, 2003). Adler also found that those who considered themselves inferior developed a depreciation of others, which correlated with the self-acceptance inherent in the eudaimonic philosophy (Ansbacher & Ansbacher, 1956).
Friendship built on the foundation of virtue was of key importance in achieving eudaimonia. According to Aristotle, knowledge of each other's dispositions was essential in choosing a friend in order that the ensuing friendship would be based on the mutual willing of good for each other and that both would be aware of this. This virtuous basis would likely only be applicable to those virtues the friends had in common, for it would be impossible to find a person who could embody all of them. In this way, the friendship is identified as virtuous due to the character of the friends and not out of any sense of obtaining pleasure or utility as the primary motivator for the relationship. A virtuous friendship was highly valued because its intrinsic worth was for the sake of goodness and not solely the pleasure and utilitarian benefits derived from the relationship, enabling the friendship to survive when the attributes of pleasure and utility wax and wane.
Cicero’s Laelius de Amicita. Marcus Tullius Cicero was born into an influential middle- class family on January 3, 106 BCE in Arpinum. When he was a young man, he was sent to both
Rome and Greece by his father to receive an education in Greco-Roman philosophy. This excellent education served him well in his later career as a statesman, orator, philosopher and writer. He was eventually exiled from Rome due to the machinations of his political enemies, eventually being recalled due to the influence of his friend Pompey. He reluctantly sided against
Julius Caesar when he assumed dictatorial powers, and although his life was spared, he found himself banished from the political arena once and for all. Following his banishment, he SPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP 19 dedicated himself to writing, until he was assassinated in December of 43 BCE for opposing
Mark Antony (Schroeder, 2007).
Cicero’s Laelius de Amicita provided a foundation for the later writings regarding friendship in the 12th century, notably the Christian understanding of natural friendship and how to integrate it within a friendship which regarded God as the supreme object of affection. Cicero was also one of the primary inspirations for Aelred's later treatise on friendship, having been greatly inspired by reading Laelius de Amicita in his youth (Aelred, 1164-1167/2010). Cicero placed a high value on friendship, to the extent that he regarded it as enhancing daily life
(Cicero, trans. 2009). He shared the view of Aristotle that friendship's highest manifestation originated from a permanent quality; in Cicero's case, this was exhibited in the unchanging nature of humanity, as those friendships which were based in pleasure or utility were liable to change according to individual desires and needs, while those that were based in human nature endured forever because of the permanence of human nature.
Cicero presented five distinct qualities of friendship: (a) the inherent goodness and virtue of friendship; (b) the necessity of truth and honesty in the relationship (c) the desiring of what is honorable and not evil; (d) the bond of friendship was rooted in kindness and goodness and not utility or selfish gain; and (e) a mutual attraction based on similarity of disposition and a mutual empathy. These are all attributes of natural friendship, requiring nothing beyond the consent and free will of the people involved (Cicero, trans. 2009). As worthy as these attributes are, there is still room for them to grow beyond a natural framework and unite friends in a deeper, more lasting and truer bond than can be achieved through natural effort. The concept of natural friendship was further expanded by Christian philosophers and theologians, with two of the most notable being St. Augustine and Aelred of Rievaulx. SPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP 20
Comparisons to Aristotle and Cicero. The Christian tradition of spiritual friendship as described by Abbot Aelred includes several notable differences and congruencies to the views of natural friendship envisioned by Aristotle and Cicero. Aelred described spiritual friendship as sacramental, as a means to embrace Christ in this life through a sacrificial, intentional giving of oneself for another. In this respect, the emotional resonance and concurrent pleasure that such a friendship would naturally evoke was viewed not as a byproduct or as a lesser consequence, but rather as something to be celebrated and encouraged in itself. Aelred differed from Cicero by expanding the basis of friendship from being primarily rooted in human nature, to ultimately being experienced in its full richness when it is properly subordinated and working in concert with an apprehension and understanding of the ultimate intention and purpose of friendship, which was, according to Aelred, to unite a pair of brothers in friendship with Christ. Aelred agreed with Aristotle's emphasis on virtue when he was cautioned about who was suitable for being named as a friend, emphasizing that they must be gradually known to ensure they were of virtuous character before trusting them with deeper, more intimate knowledge (Aelred, 1164-
1167/2010). Aelred also agreed with Cicero in the assertion that true friendship could exist "only among the good"(Aelred, 1164-1167/2010, pg. 101).
Male Same-Sex Friendship
Benefits of Male Same-Sex Friendship Importance for mental and emotional health. Same-sex friendships among males during childhood and adolescence have been noted to serve as a valuable source of psychological and emotional support (Redman, Epstein, Kehily, & Mac an Ghaill, 2002). These early friendships serve as environments where boys can determine socially acceptable versions of masculinity, primarily from the 'otherness' the friendship provides, but also in comparison to SPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP 21 their peers. They are also refuges from increasing external stressors during this turbulent time of a boy's development. An affectionate, intimate same-sex friendship gives males the space to be vulnerable, to both obtain and give affection and as a primary source of emotional and psychological support, as well as encouraging a more holistic and nuanced understanding of their own masculinity. This can be complicated by the still-prevalent cultural expectation that men be self-reliant and stoic (Roberts, 2013). In a study by Santos, Way & Scott (as cited in Way, 2013) adolescents who exhibited higher rates of adherence to masculine norms, such as emotional stoicism and autonomy with friends were positively associated with higher depressive symptoms both concurrently and prospectively.
Male same-sex friendships are increasingly being recognized as being of significant importance for adolescent males’ emotional, mental and social development, often in ways which have been forgotten or ignored in the past due to an emphasis on how boys were culturally expected to behave (Way, 2013). The benefits of close friendships are linked with improved physical and emotional well-being, as well as academic achievement (Way, 2013). A study by
Eardley, Nangle, Newman and Carpenter (as cited in Way, 2013) found that the association between the quality of friendships and psychological adjustment was higher for boys than girls.
Contexts of development in the micro level, such as homes and schools, influence how boys respond to the masculine expectations and norms of the surrounding environments, as well as within the macro contexts such as ethnic stereotypes that permeate the micro contexts (Way, et al., 2014).
Adolescent boys themselves are recognizing the importance that their same-sex intimate friendships have on their emotional and mental health, citing that the most important aspects of their friendships were the sharing of secrets and feelings and the trust that was present within the SPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP 22 friendships with their male friends (Way, 1997; Way, 2012; Way, 2013). A common theme among adolescent boys is the continuing desire for emotionally intimate same-sex friendships with their friends, freely confessing their love, respect and trust for them while seemingly defying the cultural assumption that males are emotionally illiterate and activity oriented (Way,
2012). Tragically, when most boys reach late adolescence, they tend to disconnect themselves from the relationships which they acknowledge as supporting their mental health, in an effort to reaffirm the traditional masculine stereotypes of autonomy and self-reliance imposed by the surrounding society and culture (Way, 2013). The lack of close friendships among adolescent males was discovered to be associated with higher risks for depression, suicide, low scholastic engagement, dropping out of school, drug use and gang membership (Way, 2013).
Millennial adolescents, especially those who self-identify as "modern" or "progressive" increasingly reject the acceptance of stereotypical Western norms of masculinity to the exclusion of those elements that have been traditionally been regarded as "feminine", such as expressing emotions and acknowledging difficulties in both relationships and home life (Way et al., 2014).
Many male adolescents are increasingly comfortable with and even proponents of expressing their emotions, even when it is regarded as not "manly" to do so. This indicates that many of the younger generation are coming to the conclusion that self-disclosure and support are necessary and healthy for mental and emotional health. This is promising due to the decline in social stigma that such conversations have had among the public in the past. Such resistance to debilitating norms of masculinity provides them with necessary emotional support in their relationships with same-sex male peers as well as encouraging them that their emotions are not a part of them that needs to be changed or excised (Way et al., 2014). SPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP 23
Importance as a place of trust. The importance of same-sex friendships as places of trust with are essential in providing males a necessary connection with another of the same sex during their developmental years. This is one of the earliest experiences most boys have with the segregation of the sexes, with most preferring to spend time with those of the same sex and with whom their interests align, usually remaining within rigidly heterosexualized borders dictated by the surrounding culture (Redman, et al. 2002; Rose, S. M. 1985). The same-sex friendships of pre-adolescent boys also provides them with an environment where appropriate same-sex affection and intimacy is expressed between male friends, as well as where the engagement in expressions of culture-based masculinity, such as a conscious effort to distance themselves from behaviors they would regard as "girly" can be expressed (Redman, et al. 2002; Way, 2013). The increasing decline of emotionally supportive male friendships as males move through late adolescence into adulthood is particularly striking when one of the primary occurrences is the loss of trust in others (Way, 1997).
Value of robust same-sex friendships. With the increasing sexualization of nearly all emotionally intimate relationships and expressions of affection within them, philia has often been interchangeable with eros according to modern sensibilities, which unfortunately usually results in a stigma surrounding male emotional or physical closeness with friends. They may fear they are unconsciously expressing subliminal sexual desires for their friend, or that others will perceive one or both to be gay, when they are simply seeking to express a healthy affection for their friend within their friendship, the expression of which has steadily been culturally suppressed and subliminally sexualized (Lewis, 1960/2004). The only other socially acceptable narrative reduces male same-sex friendships to the superficial level of “buddies” and offers little in the way of emotional acknowledgement or support, which further distances males from SPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP 24 forming close, intimate bonds with each other (Way, 2013). The establishment of healthy male same-sex friendships in the modern era is of great value and instead of being encouraged, it too often takes a form which is shallow instead of having real depth and is viewed as disposable, rather than essential to the well-being of both individuals in the friendship and the betterment of society as a consequence.
Modern Male Same-Sex Friendship Cultural expectations of masculinity. The expectation of masculinity has undergone several revisions within the last few centuries. In the 19th century it was fairly common for same-sex male friends to openly express physical intimacy and fondness for each other without their friendship being viewed as anything other than a mutual affection and enjoyment of one another's company (Greene, 2013). This had some basis in the cultural separation of the sexes at the time, with males and females relying more on the love and affection of their same-sex friends than any other bond, save immediate family (Hill, 2015). Remarkably, this even included marriage bonds with many couples expressing emotional intimacy through letters and enjoying extended physical contact with same-sex friends without having their sexuality called into question. Men and women would even take friends and family along on their honeymoons for company (Hill, 2015).
The mid 20th century increasingly made many of these expressions of affection culturally and socially suspect, owing to the increasingly mythologized status of romantic love at the expense of all other forms, with behavior deviating from the heteronormative script inviting ridicule from other males, particularly in adolescence (Greene, 2013). In response, many boys established various coping methods for "doing masculinity", sometimes conforming to the idealized expectations of culturally-enforced gender and at other times co-opting, challenging or improvising on them. There is some evidence that the expression of masculinity in boyhood is SPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP 25 more gender-inclusive and flexible than the later expressions during adolescence (Redman, et al.
2002) . Many adolescent boys work to maintain the gender self-concept, usually in appropriate contexts and in ways that accomplish specific relational goals, such as impressing others or attempting to fit in with a specific social group (Oransky & Marecek, 2009).
The Western cultural emphasis of certain aspects of masculinity at the expense of a holistic framework is most often promulgated within mid-to-late adolescence, and often marginalizes those boys who do not meet the culturally promulgated standard of masculinity
(Lee, 2005). This prevailing masculine ideology, which expects males to be emotionally stoic, aggressive, autonomous and physically tough, has been suggested to in fact hinder boys from expressing themselves and maintaining interpersonal relationships (Chu, Porsche & Tolman,
2005). This dismissal of male's emotional lives manifests itself in assuming that what boys have in their friendships is what they currently want, which leads to the assumption that boys are, by their nature, not interested in the expression of their emotion or having an intimate friendship.
This can lead to assumptions of adolescent males generally being more interested in sharing physical activities, such as participation in competitive sports, with their same-sex peers, rather than engage with their friends on an emotional level (Roy, Benenson, & Lilly, 2000).
As James Wagenvoord (as cited in Roberts, 2013) wrote in a book intended to help women understand the opposite-sex:
He shall not cry. He shall not display weakness. He shall not need affection or gentleness or warmth. He shall comfort but not desire comforting. He shall be needed but not need. He shall touch but not be touched. He shall be steel not flesh. He shall be inviolate in his manhood. He shall stand alone. (Men: A Book for Women, 1978, p. 165)
This unhealthy expectation of a strong, self-reliant individual, unable to accept any care for himself but expected to provide it to others on-demand, has resulted in many boys and men SPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP 26 sacrificing their boyhood friendships, despite this being a recognized basic need, both by males themselves and by the numerous researchers who have studied the so-called "boy-crisis" within
American society.
According to R.A Lewis (1978), the deficits of this stunted masculinity become evident when one considers that the lack of close, emotionally fulfilling relationships between men is linked to the increase in suicides, particularly among divorced men. The rejection and exclusion by peers in adolescence has also been associated with academic difficulties, as well as increases in aggression, violence and substance abuse, while adults encountering peer rejection later in life were noted to have experienced cognitive disorientation, emotional distress and depression
(Watson, J., & Nesdale, D., 2012). The surrounding culture, with a pessimistic view of human nature that often trivializes friendship as an indulgence for males, presents a continuous obstacle to overcome if acceptance for a balanced, more nuanced and healthier form of masculinity is to be attained.
Mythologizing same-sex sexuality. Beginning in late adolescence, the association of sexuality begins to be attached to close male same-sex friendships, to the extent that they are nearly equated as such by adolescents (Way, 2013). This is enabled and perpetuated by a culture that relentlessly equates romantic love as the ultimate relational end, while treating close same- sex friendships as a passing phase that will eventually be grown out of (Greene, 2015). This hegemonic attitude often leaves many adolescent boys, especially those in the United States, viewing their childhood with nostalgia and regret because of how Western culture sanctions the emotional expression in same-sex friendships in a manner which becomes culturally forbidden to them as they grow older (Way, 1997). SPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP 27
While in previous eras, an emotionally intimate and close male friendship was viewed as between two people who admired each other and sought mutual edification and development of virtue, the modern era is quick to assume an underlying, subconscious erotic attraction on the part of one or both friends. This was noted by Lewis (1960/2004), when he defended the nature of male friendships from critics who sought to claim that any expression of emotional or physical intimacy or affection between men was "really homosexual". The attitude taken by detractors of intimate same-sex friendships was akin to that of a man saying there was an invisible cat in a chair; this could not be proven or disproven, but the lack of evidence was presented as proof of the cat's existence (Lewis 1960/2004).
The belief that male friendships can contain a close emotional bond which is beneficial and should be allowed to flourish, regardless of the age of the friends, can result in misunderstandings and conflicts with authority and parental figures who grew up in a time where intimate relationships between boys were regarded as suspect, even potentially dangerous
(Roberts, 2013). The prevalence of cultural suspicion of any type of emotional reciprocation between boys as not being "manly" is a relatively recent, but no less damaging sentiment (Hill,
2015). This attitude has been seen to eventually impact boys near late-adolescence from pursuing close, intimate friendships with other boys in the manner they had when they were younger, rather than risking being viewed as being potentially gay and having their masculinity questioned by peers or parental figures (Greene, 2015).
The intensity of the emotional bonds of boys and adolescents may be viewed with suspicion and misconstrued by parents and other authority figures if it continues into mid-to-late adolescence. When boys reach late adolescence, especially in Westernized developed countries, they are expected to conform to a socially-embedded masculine ideal that emphasizes autonomy, SPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP 28 self-reliance and emotional stoicism, in addition to institutionalized homophobia and sexism that simultaneously discourages and limits friendships between males in society (Way, 2013). The determination among boys to not appear "emotional" or "girly" during late adolescence is a strong indicator that homophobia and sexism are major factors in why boys and men experience a noticeable decline and loss of close male friendships after early adolescence (Greene, 2015;
Way, 2013). Notably, however, this level of disengagement from an emotional connection to their same-sex friends generally coincides with late adolescence, when boys are culturally expected to become self-reliant. The phrase "no homo" continually shadows any intimate statement made about their same-sex friends and they begin to withdraw from the close friendships that they once treasured and resign themselves to the loss, even as they continue to express a strong desire for such friendships (Way, 2013).
During late adolescence, a period of profound loss among many boys' relationships begins. The close friendships they treasured with their same-sex friends and which they relied on for both emotional and psychological support are now pressured to be set aside and for them to "grow up", risking the labels of being called "girly" or "gay" if they delay or decline (Way,
2013). This artificial dichotomy of what it means to be masculine creates a perpetuation of what males are perceived to be by the culture; stoic, autonomous and isolated. Frighteningly, the period of late adolescence coincides with a dramatic rise in the suicide rate for boys in the United
States, becoming four to five times as high as that of girls (Way, 2013).
Acceptance of male same-sex friendships. From the Civil War to the 1920s, it was common for male friends to visit a photographer's studio together for a portrait to commemorate their shared friendship and affection (Greene, 2013). The evident familiarity with each other and casual physical proximity were common within male same-sex friendships at the time, reflecting SPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP 29 the intimacy and intensity of male friendships which have been lost in the modern era (Greene,
2013). The types of affectionate physical contact which were common among same-sex friends in the 19th century, including extended physical contact such as leaning against someone for several minutes, sitting close together by choice and prolonged touch are deemed suspect by the modern culture's relentless monitoring, resulting in a touch-averse society that has arguably caused immense damage to a generation both individually and collectively (Greene, 2013).
Friendship in modernity, especially between males, still occupies a nebulous category in Western culture. It seems difficult and burdened with questions and anxieties in a way that we imagine it was free from in past eras. This can be observed in how both society and peers make fun of, laugh about, or feel embarrassed by the possibility of intense emotion, even the potentiality of romantic longing, being directed towards a same-sex friend. According to Hill (2015), this obscures the possibility of actualizing the types of deep friendships society needs. The mythologizing of sexuality, which can be traced back to Sigmund Freud's assertions that all relationships are fundamentally erotic, has led to the belief that any sort of chaste affection or contact between those of the same-sex is really about something more under the surface, to the extent that it has become a universal cultural observation.
The fear of homoerotic interpretations can especially be observed in friendships between same-sex males, where emotionally close male friendships are socially considered to inherently possess a subliminal erotic component, which may contribute to the uncertainty that is expressed regarding a same-sex friendship. The underlying homoeroticism that may be encountered depending on the activity and the environment, such as viewing art in a museum, is instantly familiar to many males who seek a friendship with another male, but find themselves uneasy over what could be perceived as a subliminal erotic component to their interactions, resulting in a SPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP 30 socially perilous situation between two males when they are socializing without a form of culturally appropriate social crutch, such as sports or for a business meeting (Lee, 2005). The result is an awkward maneuvering of constant self-monitoring and correction to ensure that one's behavior or social cues do not imply a greater interest or emotional investment then that of a friend as defined by social expectations. This form of social and self-policing is ultimately damaging to males, as their attempts to forge healthy relationships with others are placed under constant scrutiny. Men are in the unique place of having both their masculinity and sexuality questioned by society when they seek even cursory emotional support from a male friend, let alone establishing a deep, emotionally intimate friendship with a same-sex friend.
Numerous other cultures have vastly differing expectations for emotionally intimate friendships among males, with the "modern" and "sophisticated" cultures of America and, to a slightly lesser extent, Europe, leading in denigrating boys' and men's desire for emotionally intimate male friendships as feminine, childlike or indicating a proclivity towards homosexuality
(Way, 2013). The Lakota tribe maintains a tradition of emotionally intimate friendships among males going back generations in which the defining feature of the friendship is the close emotional bond between the men (Way, 2013). Same-sex best friends go through a marriage ceremony strikingly similar to that performed for opposite-sex couples in southern Ghana, while in Cameroon, children are pressured to find a best friend by their parents in much the same way that American parents pressure their adult children to find an appropriate romantic partner (Way,
2013). In many Eastern and Middle Eastern countries, it remains quite common for same-sex heterosexual best friends to hold hands while walking in public and to regularly rely on each other for emotional support (Way, 2013). SPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP 31
The cultural acceptance of intimate male same-sex friendships among adolescents in developed Western nations has slowly increased in the last decade, particularly among the
Millennial generation (Anderson, 2013). These relationships have become less subject to condemnation from society, possibly due in part to shifting cultural and societal views on homosexuality (Anderson, 2013). According to Anderson (2013), modern adolescents throughout Europe and certain regions of the United States are gradually becoming more tolerant and accepting of emotional expressiveness and physical tactility between male friends than in years past. Where male students would once risk being ostracized and mocked for expressing behaviors directed towards each other which were not typically considered 'masculine', many boys are increasingly comfortable in acknowledging their emotional affection for their same-sex male friends instead of putting up a front of pseudo hyper-masculinity (Way, 2013).
According to Anderson (2013), the combination of increased emotional intimacy, physical tactility, eschewing the use of violence as a first resort, and the acceptable social inclusion of gay male peers has begun to alter the stereotypical Western perception of what masculinity is supposed to be, creating a new social model termed "inclusive masculinity". This potential cultural shift should be viewed as beneficial in the area of social interest because it assists in breaking down societal and regional barriers that may impede the formation and development of true friendships among male same-sex peers. While traditionally masculine and feminine roles and attributes have a valued and recognized place in the culture, this does not mean that all roles that have been traditionally gender-segregated are in the best interests of all individuals involved. The exciting result of questioning some cultural stereotypes is the realization that some behaviors that have been viewed as gender-segregated may not need to be, and may be altered to reflect a more realistic living situation. This would also lessen or remove SPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP 32 the forced gender-based ideal that restricts and impedes the growth and development of the next generation. Ideally, this would lead to a deliberate fostering and exercise of boys' and men's natural empathic abilities and through them, their intimate same-sex friendships (Greene, 2013).
Same-sex expressions of affection. The expression of affection between male same-sex friends has slowly become more socially and culturally acceptable since the mid-2000’s
(Anderson, 2013). This affection is generally expressed through increased emotional intimacy and physical tactility. This increase has been especially noted in the United Kingdom
(Anderson, 2013), with many boys bonding not only over shared interests and similar personalities, but engaging in forms of affection that were more common over a century ago with increasing regularity, including providing emotional support and engaging in physical closeness without the fear of their sexual orientation being questioned by others. Anderson (2013) also reported that the boys and young men in the study distanced themselves from such behaviors as conservative masculinity, hyper-heterosexuality, aggression and stoicism that had been previously reported in the literature.
While some of the reported behaviors were surprising, such as that 89 percent of same- sex males kissed another male friend on the lips as a sign of their friendship, the acceptance of this behavior was cited as being an outgrowth of the more tolerant attitudes toward expressed affection between males (Anderson, 2013). There also exists the real possibility that the expression of intimate affection between male friends at this level can be traced back to the self- reporting of copious amounts of alcohol ingested by both parties prior to most of the reported same-sex kissing (Anderson, 2013).
While this inclusive masculinity has been championed by some as being the precursor of a new, dominant form of masculinity due to shifting attitudes regarding homosexuality SPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP 33
(Anderson, 2013), others are hesitant to generalize such behavior among heterosexual males without taking into account the importance of gender as a relational concept as well as other social variables, such as increasing globalization, that has great influence in shaping how men view themselves and interact with each other (Pringle, 2010). Regardless of the future trajectory of inclusive masculinity, the personal and societal benefits of a generation who are able to freely express physical and emotional affection among others of the same-sex without negative judgment is encouraging. The possibility also exists that an increase of heterosexual males who are free to express their affection to same-sex friends will be treated by the broader society as examples of the intersection of eros and philia. This would continue the pattern of society in conflating a genuine affection and love for a same-sex male friend with the expression of subliminal homosexual expression. This creates the dilemma of attempting to prove a negative and, more tellingly, is indicative that those who hold such views lack an understanding of what true friendship is (Lewis, 1960/2004).
Notably absent from the modern narrative of male friendships is the option and encouragement for males to pursue a platonic friendship with those of the same-sex without it being overshadowed or pervasively influenced by eros and instead re-discover the value and pleasure to be found in philia as friendship. Indeed, the highest expression of philia is that of agapé, most evident in the intentional usage in the Gospel of John, in which Christ closely connects the two forms of love when discussing his death on the Cross to his Disciples
(Haraguchi, 2014).
Spiritual Friendship
History of Spiritual Friendship Basis in Christian tradition. The importance of friendship in the Christian tradition is widely established, not only through Christ's teachings, but also throughout the Old Testament SPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP 34
(Proverbs 18:24, 17:17, 27:17, 12:26, Ecclesiastes 4:9-10, John:15:12-15, English Standard
Version). Indeed, the three most important covenants in the Bible are characterized by friendship between God and the human representatives of Abraham, Moses and the Twelve
Apostles. The entirety of the Davidic line originated with the friendship between Ruth and
Naomi, which is indicative of the lofty status which God evidently assigns friendship. The
Trinity itself is the supreme example of the otherness and interflow of friendship, as each of the members are united in an eternal bond of love and fellowship. Incredibly, when Christ declared the Disciples as friends, he offered the same complete intimacy that he knew with the other members of the Godhead to humankind.
The case can be made that spiritual friendship in the Christian tradition is arguably the richest and most intense possible form of human closeness, with the exception of romantic lovers. Wesley Hill (2015) stated that a Christian vision of friendship is the natural end of friendship itself being both created and redeemed for intimacy, arguably the greatest human need. This reaffirms both the inherent goodness and necessity of friendship and challenges us to discern how relational intimacy between same-sex male friends, including physical intimacy, can be manifested in a way that is both deeply passionate and personal, yet remains free from the genital expression of sexuality.
During the medieval era, it was generally assumed that there was no true friendship save between those united through blood (Hill, 2015). The Christian tradition took that assumption and scandalously inverted it, believing that the truest and most enduring ties were externally sealed with the common partaking of the Eucharist, joining those involved with bonds of friendship that would endure for eternity. This precipitated a re-evaluation of what role friendship played in the Christian life; with friendship reclaiming an appropriately lofty position SPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP 35 within the context of both personal bonds and the impact those bonds would have on the Church as a whole. The ultimate purpose of discipleship is reached through friendship, as friendship is the essence of a relationship with both God and others (Dykstra, 2009).
The Christian depiction of friendship contains many elements which are identical to natural friendship, with the crucial difference of being deepened and sustained through the relationship with Christ shared by both members. This unique bond enables both individuals to regard their friendship with more care and intentionality than they might otherwise. The elements of intimacy, careful attention to mutual edification, an ability to be open and trusting and patience are all shared between the natural, supernatural and spiritual types of friendship.
Within the Celtic tradition, the concept of love and friendship took the form of the anam cára, defined as "soul friend". This definition was originally attributed to an individual to whom regular confession was made, revealing the hidden intricacies of one's life. In the Celtic church, it took the form of a person who acted as a teacher, companion or spiritual guide (O'Donahue, J.,
2004).
There can be a case for a theology of friendship woven throughout the entire Biblical narrative, subordinate yet clearly intermingled within the redemptive story. Such examples depict not only an honoring of friendship, but a promotion and sanctification of it. This is further examined in a sermon by John Henry Newman (as cited in Hill, 2015) in which he argues that having particular friendships with those who are near us have the potential to begin the development of patterns of self-giving and hospitality that we would otherwise fail to learn if we simply viewed Christian charity as abstractions such as "loving humanity" or "loving our enemies". The argument made is that we need the cultivation of intimate friendships with those around us before we are to wisely and effectively love those outside our own circle. SPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP 36
Regarding to the expression of physical affection in the Christian tradition of friendship, it was common within the Church to express affection for one another with a kiss, which was used as a mark of reconciliation or unity, a sign of peace or as an expression of platonic affection between brothers, a practice that is still common in some Christian traditions. While these external signs had different reasons for being given, the shared premise was that the shared emotional affection between a pair of men demanded a bodily expression, overflowing from the spiritual to the embodied. These expressions of physical affection are still common between men in local Middle-Eastern and Eastern European Christian communities today, the Orthodox
Church's kiss of greeting being perhaps the most well known (Hill, 2015).
An intriguing line of thought among Christians who identify as gay or same-sex attracted is the reclamation of eros as a legitimate expression of love. Rejecting the genital expression of eros as being contrary to Scripture when outside a heterosexual marriage, some Christians who experience same-sex attractions but choose not to act on them make the compelling case that eros is a form of love which ultimately has its origin in God, and therefore can find an appropriate expression between individuals of the same-sex, without crossing into actions that would oppose Scriptural prohibitions (Taylor, 2014). This line of thought correlates with the underlying tension that exists in men expressing physical affection for each other in the modern era and may be a means for male friends, whether they identify as gay or not, to rediscover the value of deep intimacy with a male friend and an appreciation of male beauty without the labels of sexual orientation being an issue. An example of this would be the appreciation for the sculptures of Renaissance artists, particularly that of Michelangelo's David. The appreciation of the male form is not explicitly sexual in itself, but it does contain elements of eros, which should be separated from the mythologized, pathological form they have taken in society if they are to SPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP 37 be properly understood, owned and even celebrated as acceptable forms of male same-sex intimacy.
This potential for chaste, same-sex affection is a valuable goal to strive towards, as it actualizes one of the elements in what it means to be human; namely that we are moved by beauty and by the excellencies we find in others. Just as heterosexuality is not confined merely to the sexual expression of the orientation, encouraging the expression of homosexuality through a lens which actualizes the myriad possibilities beyond sexual expression is one that is worthy of encouragement. When sexuality is reduced to merely genital expression without taking into account the numerous ways it may influence other endeavors without crossing into genital expression, it reduces our humanity to a baser level, denigrating us and casting an unwarranted, subliminal tension over every interaction with a same-sex friend. Since sexuality is woven throughout numerous human endeavors without ever crossing into genital expression, the expression of an actualized homoerotic love for a same-sex friend which does not fall under a
Scriptural condemnation appears to be possible and therefore should be acknowledged as a reality within male same-sex relationships. The recognition of the underlying tension should not be grounds for the current intricate avoidance of same-sex intimacy, but rather the beginning of a conversation as to why the expression of male same-sex intimacy is uncomfortable in Western society, when other cultures have no such prohibitions or recognition of such interactions being inherently sexual.
David and Jonathan. David and Jonathan’s friendship is often viewed as the archetype of spiritual friendship within Scripture. This friendship between the future king of Israel and the son of King Saul is arguably the most well-known same-sex male friendship in Scripture (Hill,
2015). Throughout the passages, both David and Jonathan continually affirmed and reaffirmed SPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP 38 their love and loyalty for one another, with their final recorded meeting ending with a covenant made before God, which was the very essence of Aelred's vision of friendship (Hill, 2015). It was true that the friendship between David and Jonathan certainly contained intimacy and affectionate physicality, but this did not reflect a sexual component between them when taking into account the Near Eastern attitudes toward same-sex affection during this time. Both freely confessed their affections for each another (1 Samuel 20:17); they freely expressed platonic physical affection (1 Samuel 20:41) and they expressed an incredible amount of loyalty to each other, placing their friendship above that of family, wealth and tradition (1 Samuel 23:15-23).
This language and expression of nonsexual friendship and romantic love intermingled in a friendship what was more emotionally intense, more committed and more irrevocable than most modern interpretations of friendship are.
Augustine. Saint Augustine of Hippo (354-430 BCE) is arguably one of the most well known of the early Christian authors, being a mix of a philosopher, theologian, mystic, poet, orator, polemicist, writer and pastor (Schroeder, 2007). He was an ardent scholar of philosophy in his early life and notably strayed from the Christian faith of his mother in his youth, though he consistently felt the pull towards the idea of truth. He was drawn back to Christianity through the preaching of the Bishop Ambrose of Milan after years of being spiritually unfulfilled through the Skeptics and Manicheans. He eventually was baptized in 387 and ordained a priest in 391 after moving to Hippo, in North Africa. He became bishop following the death of Bishop
Valerius and spent the next thirty-five years of his life shepherding his flock, dying in 430 during the Vandal siege. He was a remarkably prolific author, with the extensive writings that he left behind comparable in volume to Origen's (Schroeder, 2007). SPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP 39
Augustine was noted to have had a natural disposition towards friendship throughout his life, with his deeply affectionate nature winning him many friends. The significance of friendship in Augustine's writing's is extensive, with at least 269 personal letters from him to friends and acquaintances. During his lifetime, Augustine's deepened from simply companionship to spiritual oneness in charity. While the importance of friendship evolved throughout Augustine's life, it never diminished, remaining a core feature of his personality and his interactions with others. After he became a Christian, his experience of friendship notably shifted; while his previous friendships had been initially built on a foundation of the sheer pleasure of the company of others absent any apprehension of true virtue and then on a shared desire for truth and goodness, his friendships after his conversion and baptism were both deepened and strengthened, as Christ was the center of the friendship (Schroeder, 2007). This freed Augustine from being concerned or despairing when faced with the separation of death of his friends and family, as had happened to him in the past before his conversion (Schroeder,
2007).
Aelred of Rievaulx. Abbot Aelred of Rievaulx was a Christian monk who lived in the twelfth century, initially spending a good portion of his youth in the Court of King David I of
Scotland and eventually became the abbot of the Cistercian Rievaulx monastery in 1147. He was most well known for developing a comprehensive definition of spiritual friendship in his work
De spirituali amicitia or Spiritual Friendship, which synthesized the classical and natural definitions and attributions of friendship in a Christian context. The twin principles of love and human goodness were the pillars of all Aelred's teachings, influenced by the Cistercian life of austerity, solitude and silence (Aelred, 1164-1167/2010). Contrary to the common belief at the time that the only love permissible for Christians was that of a disinterested charity willing the SPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP 40 good of all persons regardless of preference or favor, Aelred believed that it was fully compatible with Christianity to have particular friendships; that is, friendships marked by a unique pleasure when in the company of specific friends who shared interests, personality traits or came from similar backgrounds (Schroeder, 2007). He was notable for re-introducing the belief that a general feeling of benevolence towards humankind is useless without the intentional exercise of that love to those around us. His influence on this area of human relationships is considered to be so notable that he is regarded as the unofficial patron saint of friendship (Hill, 2015).
De spirituali amicitia consisted of three books written as a dialogue between Aelred and his fellow monks and friends Ivo, Walter and Gratian. Within the treatise, Aelred explored and defended the possibility of uniquely intimate relationships within the context of monastic life; relationships of exclusivity that eventually broadened into a wider community, united by the same love that prompted early Christians to surrender their own property for the welfare of one another. Even though Aelred viewed the ultimate expression of spiritual friendship as a community, he recognized and advocated that it must necessarily originate with pairs or trios of committed brothers (Hill, 2015). The goal of spiritual friendship, according to Aelred, was only possible for a mature, discreet and stable individual who was informed by faith and grace. This in no way made the pursuit of spiritual friendship impossible; it only secured it by ensuring that those who successfully pursued and attained it were doing so for the good of the friendship and for the other individual, not acting out of selfish or carnal reasons (Russell, 2012). This emulated the close relationships between Christian monks of the Byzantium era. One notably laudable example concerned an elder monk who requested that a younger monk dwell with him.
The younger monk replied that he was a sinner and could not live with a monk whose purity was well known. After listening to the insistence of the elder monk, the younger monk requested a SPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP 41 week to consider it, during which he arrived at a village on an errand and sinned with a woman.
When the younger monk repented, the elder monk offered to bear half the sin, persuading the younger monk with his self-sacrificial action and resulting in them sharing a dwelling until they died. This relationship shared both the burden of celibacy and the repentance of sexual sin, exemplifying a Christ-like sacrificial love that was the essence of spiritual friendship (Kreuger,
2011).
Abbot Aelred's vision of spiritual friendship was greatly informed and shaped by his knowledge and study of the writings of Saint Augustine, although it differed in the final conclusion (Schroeder, 2007). Augustine's influence on Aelred's vision of spiritual friendship can be easily discerned when examining the parallels between Augustine's depiction of supernatural friendship and Aelred's spiritual friendship. While both men had suffered the loss of dear friends, they came to diametrically opposing conclusions regarding how friendship was to be approached. Augustine believed that a dispassionate and indiscriminating brotherhood was the ideal monastic community, believing that the Trinity was the only true locus of enjoyment.
He subordinated others to the extent that they were viewed as instruments in journeying back to
God and Heaven. This was in stark contrast to Aelred's view, where personal friendships within the monastic community were exalted as the ideal, though tempered by the use of reason, as a means to benefit the spiritual life (Schroeder, 2007) . Aelred made a clear distinction between brotherly love and true friendship in his writings. He believed that true friendship was reserved for those who were able to lift themselves to spiritual heights and were pursued for no other purpose other than the feeling of enjoyment that resulted from the union of two noble souls. This was in opposition to Augustine's assertion that an individual attraction was less important than a broader connection to more people (Noell, 2002). SPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP 42
Following Abbot Aelred's death in 1167, it became common in some Christian circles for pairs of male friends in Europe to consider themselves spiritual kin. This was exemplified in adelphopoiesis, a rite within the Orthodox Church translated as "brother-making". These spiritual unions were commonly sealed with a liturgy performed outside the doors of the local church, signifying that although these pacts were considered divinely sanctioned, they were recognized as being folkloric in origin rather than sacramental (Hill, 2015). Following the ceremony, the brothers would be known not only by their own names, but in relation to each other through commonly recognized bonds of friendship which joined the brothers both with
God and with one another in God, showcasing an excellent depiction of the intersection of the horizontal plane (the relationship with our fellow humans) and the vertical plane (humanity's relationship to God). The celebration of the eternal union of pairs of monastic friends was encouraged among some communities and served to direct both the monastic brothers and the broader Christian community towards the higher bonds of love found within Christ, while still acknowledging the friendships themselves as valuable in a lesser sense when compared.
Value of Spiritual Friendship
Individual Benefits of Spiritual Friendship The benefits within the Christian vision of spiritual friendship are many; including a sense of unity, a common passion and shared goal, the encouragement of others to spur us onward and a helping hand to pick us up when we fall. Spiritual friendship, regrettably, is rarely actively encouraged as intentional friendship within contemporary Christianity, except within the context of organized church-based activities which does not always translate into the greater world. This represents a great loss in the Christian life as well as for the greater society, as both the benefits and sacrificial elements within spiritual friendship would undoubtedly be of great benefit for improving and representing the character, affection and loyalty that true friendship SPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP 43 contains. Spiritual friendship has historically been of great importance within the Christian tradition, as it has been viewed throughout Christianity's history as an essential means both by which God expresses grace towards us, as well as an important means though which Christians walked closely with each other in spiritual growth and holiness. True friendships, rooted in the
Christian tradition of spiritual friendship, not only bind the members together, but also free them to offer the gift of friendship to others, when such an offer is appropriate (Phelps & Waalkes,
2009). One means of re-engaging this form of relational intimacy is through the actions we can take with beloved friends, such as carefully attending to what they delight in and gratuitously and spontaneously fulfilling them, writing a physical letter affirming the qualities we admire in them and tolerating their various eccentricities while keeping their excellent qualities in mind.
Within contemporary Christianity, a growing number of Christians who identify as gay or as experiencing same-sex attractions are using the model of spiritual friendship to advocate for relationships which both honor God and enable flourishing in contexts that are compatible with
Christian teachings. These relationships emphasize interpersonal connections and especially the formation of family-like ties in a friendship-based community which shares a passion for
Scriptural fidelity and seeks to live out that love as expressed among its members. A case has been made among them that same-sex attractions encompass more than just persistent erotic attractions toward others of the same-sex; rather that other, more innocuous desires are also woven throughout the attraction and can be fulfilled without giving into the erotic, genital expression of the sexual aspect. Most among those who identify as Christian, but experience same-sex attraction would agree that the expression of the erotic longings are to be resisted, but that other aspects which are entwined with them, such as heightened desires for friendship, hospitality, service and love, can be a means to do so. Each of these desires should be addressed SPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP 44 independently, depending on the situation they manifest in, but the compelling idea that eros is not a form of love to be avoided by Christians who identify with same-sex attractions is more honest in addressing many of the various other complicated desires that accompany the attraction
(Roen, 2015).
Many troubles which afflict members of contemporary Christian churches could arguably be alleviated if those strugglers knew they had trusted individuals who they could talk honestly and openly about their struggles and temptations, as well as those who would also celebrate their victories alongside them and be trustworthy companions in their spiritual walk (Wadell, 2002).
The intentional fostering of friendships among Christians is an essential means to address the tensions between inclusivity and exclusivity, as well as withdrawal and engagement. While there are many individuals who enjoy the kind of friendships that are necessary to survive and thrive in this life, it unfortunately tends to be more an exception rather than a frequent experience, especially in Western society (Victor & Yang, 2012).
Societal Benefits of Spiritual Friendship Spiritual friendship not only benefits the individuals who are engaged in the relationship, but also serves to improve society through the examples that such friendships model. The encouragement of spiritual friendship within the church would hopefully also have positive ramifications for the state of friendship outside the church, as this would provide an excellent and sorely needed means to display the love that Christians should exhibit for each other. An understanding of spiritual friendship as the richest and most intense form of friendship may be one of the greatest gifts to offer the post-Christian world that is increasingly unable to conceive of forms of intimacy that do not involve a sexual component. One means of encouraging this is a definition of maturity, adopted by the wider culture, which would include both aspects of being independent and the freedom to have emotionally supportive relationships. The recognition and SPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP 45 societal acceptance of the value of a full range of relationships and degrees of true friendship would result in better psychological and physical health, better marriages, better friendships, better academic outcomes, stronger communities, less violence, less bullying both inside and outside of a scholastic environment and overall a better quality of life (Way, 2013).
Overall, friendship is a unique relationship that fosters a sense of connection to others based on a shared aspect of the relationship, along with the value the relationship intrinsically has. This is further examined when taking into account the proliferation of the Internet, social networking and how cellular service increasingly connects individuals, further distancing individuals from the necessary personal interactions that are required to be truly known. This has the effect of limiting true spiritual friendships from developing and growing. Without the face-to-face intentionally of a true spiritual friendship, the relationship will not grow and may even end due to society sacrificing relationship for convenience.
Technology's Impact on Spiritual Friendship
Social Media Virtual connections. The proliferation of social media and the ability of the Internet to connect individuals across the planet is a remarkable achievement. These can be used in very positive ways, such as facilitating public opinion and participation, to meet new people, to keep connected with family and friends across the world, to mobilize civic protests and even obtain therapeutic support through online therapy (Turner, 2015). The ability to connect with thousands of individuals on social media exploded with the advent of Facebook, the world’s largest social networking site, estimated at 1.5 billion active users each month (Smith, 2014). While a cursory examination of the proliferation of social media platforms and their use may lead an observer to regard the social connectivity of the modern era with confidence, the reality is notably different SPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP 46 in regards to both the depth and intimacy of modern friendships. Indeed, the landscape of friendship itself has been increasingly altered with the introduction of social media (Deresciwicz,
2011). The promulgation of virtual friendships on social media has resulted in a disturbing trend of essentially performing for strangers, encouraging a false sense of intimacy among social media users.
The use of the word “friend” in contemporary usage has become ambiguous, with social networking permitting and encouraging the accumulation of hundreds, if not thousands, of
“friends” through Facebook and other social media platforms, so much so that the word has become a verb in itself (Roberts, 2013). It has become increasingly common for individuals to gauge their own self-worth and social standing by how many “friends” they possess, regardless if they actually have any form of relationship other than the most casual of acquaintances (Roberts,
2013). This "friending" often results in an ever-growing collection of companions who are known only superficially and then only by what they choose to present to the world. This illusory sense of intimacy is a poor substitute for friendship, which provides true intimacy and lasting emotional fulfillment, as well as engagement in a fulfilling relationship (Roberts, 2013).
While some of these online relationships undoubtedly either begin off-line or eventually develop into deeper friendships as interactions between the participants increase, the difficulty in developing and maintaining these relationships exists in the essential categories of superficial and attitudinal similarity, intimate accessibility, reciprocal candor and proximity (Knapp &
Harwood, 1977). Since all friendships require a foundational level of interaction between the participants, a virtual friendship is difficult, if not impossible, to maintain without the in-person interactions and inquiries that express to the other person how much they and the friendship as a whole mean to you. SPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP 47
The primary challenge of exclusively or primarily online interactions between people can be observed in the difficulty in defining what exactly a "friend" is in the virtual realm. If an individual is familiar with someone based only on what they post on a social networking site, are they considered a friend, or is the threshold for friendship higher than this? The disconcerting reality is that many of the virtual friendships in the modern world are little more than a collection of facts attached to a series of photographs on a screen, and not an effort in engaging with another individual and living life alongside them (Deresciwicz, 2011). This results in individuals knowing more about a carefully constructed profile of someone than a real person; essentially engaging in a relationship with a simulacrum.
Virtual social connections. The advent of social networking, as well as the cultural devaluation and even suspicion of close male friendships within many developed countries, profoundly affects both how individuals communicate with each other and perceive society
(Akst, 2010). This factor has, among others, encouraged the increase in shallow or superficial friendships in Western culture, which have found a new distillation in the realm of social media.
Popular social networking sites, such as Facebook, encourage the illusion of intimacy while replacing the personal and intimate engagement with another person (Williams, 2015). The increasing ubiquity of social media as a means of communication and connection has altered how we as a society perceive and interact with others. While this can be beneficial for staying in contact with relatives and friends who are halfway around the country or the world, it has changed how we initiate and maintain our relationships in the real world.
Electronic supplanting of friends. It has become common for many in the younger
Millennial generation, popularly known as Generation Z, to have technology so integrated into their daily lives that they have developed an attachment to their electronic devices and the SPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP 48 means of communication they provide (Turner, 2015). As reported by Palley (as cited in Turner,
2015), the use and availability of adolescent's Internet connection and cell phone were valued more highly than going to the movies, attending a sports event or going out to eat with friends.
The proliferation of numerous social media platforms enables us to shape how we want others to perceive us, and thereby present ourselves in a way that creates an illusory sense of who a person is. It offers a sense of control over both ourselves and situations that we feel are too unpredictable. The level of involvement and attention to detail required to craft how we present ourselves in these virtual forums is incredible. The construction of a social media profile is calculating and deliberate, with imperfections minimized and positive attributes maximized.
This leads to a preference for a digital socialization that seems easier and more scripted than offline interactions (Turkle, 2011).
Relationships are increasingly dominated and shaped by electronic mediums such as texting, online communications and video conferencing, which has altered how we perceive our interactions with others, increasingly treating them as more disposable than we would if the primary avenue of engagement was face-to-face. While these innovations can be valuable supplementary tools for those who have challenges in the social realm of real-life or seek remain in contact with friends, family or colleagues who are a great distance away, the overwhelming pervasiveness of their use suggests that they are replacing traditional means of engagement and interaction with other people, to the detriment of both individuals and society as a whole
(Deresciwicz, 2011). Indeed, the increase in such behavior can be widely observed in the frequency with which most adolescents utilize their cell phones for text messaging as a primary means of communication, rather than verbal interaction with peers and family (Turkle, 2011). SPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP 49
Loneliness in modern Western society. Contrary to the assertions of the various social media platforms and technologically savvy corporate giants, loneliness is increasingly epidemic in modern culture, which would seem to be counterintuitive given the emphasis on how social networking would serve to increasingly connect us through a wide variety of platforms. Instead of bringing us closer together, social media is arguably serving to push us farther apart, ensuring that we exist in a realm where people are essentially a commodity, which encourages us to easily disengage from others when we have obtained what we need from them or when they fail to meet our expectations (Turkle, 2011). Twenty percent of adults admit to feeling chronically lonely and have no close friends to discuss personal issues with (Roberts, 2013). The societal and cultural emphasis on autonomy has the deleterious effect of encouraging self at the expense of others, which in turn impacts how we view both others as well as ourselves. One of the proposed primary causes of this epidemic of loneliness is the dissolution of 'solid' relationship bonds; characterized and defined by the bond itself, in favor of 'liquid' relationship bonds; characterized by, and emphasizing, individual freedom above the community (Franklin, 2009).
The multi-dimensional view of loneliness was examined in a study which determined that individuals needed to have a definite sense of inter-personal connection through actual interactions with human beings who they felt could understand and relate to them (Hawkley,
Browne, & Cacioppo 2005). This is a notably damaging rebuttal against the assertion that social media and virtual worlds such as Second Life will supplant or supersede human interactions within the real world (Turkle, 2011). This is further evidence that a robust vision of friendship needs to be encouraged and developed among individuals in the real-world, as the face-to-face interactions among individuals physically present reinforces an intrinsic need to belong that is both a fundamental and extremely powerful motivator (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Frequent, SPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP 50 personal contacts with others that are affectively pleasant is a core feature of friendship and one that has been demonstrated to both develop and maintain an individual's sense of well-being as well as long-term, caring relationships.
Conclusion
Friendship in the modern era must be acknowledged and rediscovered in Western society if we are to reclaim a healthy understanding of masculinity. The value and benefits that such a union between souls brings is of immense value both to individuals and the greater society. The need for friendship must be admitted, not as something that is optional for human survival, but a natural part of who we are as humans. We must learn to recognize friendship and be willing to discuss our particular need for it before we can find the kind that will speak to it.
The importance of friendship needs to be both encouraged and modeled more in both the
Christian Church and the greater society, as romantic love has been mythologized to the extent of pushing out all other forms of human relationships as being truly deep and lasting. Friendship needs to be reclaimed and restored as a legitimate and lasting form of love between people, particularly males. This re-dedication to the glories and benefits of friendship would greatly improve the quality of social and personal lives for those engaged in the practice of spiritual friendship. In brief, friendship must be a standard, not an option for people.
The Christian teaching on spiritual friendship is robust enough to meet the modern challenges facing friendship and emerge as a promising, viable option for forming valuable, lasting friendships. The strong desire for friendship among individuals in the 21st century is an expression of our image-bearing nature as humans, as this is a reflection of the relationally-based interactions of the Trinity itself. Remarkably, in the Christian tradition, the horizontal relationship of friendship among human beings is an intended reflection and overflow of the SPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP 51 horizontal relationship humans have with God. We are not self-sufficient individuals; we require others to more fully know ourselves and this is reflected in the ways we need them; physically, emotionally and intellectually. When we have healthy relationships which meet our needs in these areas, however imperfectly, we are able to more fully serve and love both God and others.
SPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP 52
References
Aelred (2010). Aelred of Rievaulx: Spiritual friendship. (Dutton, M.L., Ed.) (L.C. Braceland,
Trans.) Collegeville, MN: Cistercian Publications. (Original work published 1164-1167)
Akst, D. (2010). America: The land of loners? Wilson Quarterly, 34(3), 25-27. Anderson, E. (2013). Adolescent masculinity in an age of decreased homohysteria. THYMOS:
Journal of Boyhood Studies, 7(1), 79-93.
Ansbacher, H.L. (1992). Alfred Adler's concepts of community feeling and of social interest and
the relevance of community feeling for old age. Individual Psychology: The Journal of
Adlerian Theory, Research and Practice, 48(4), 402-412.
Ansbacher, H. L., & Ansbacher, R. R. (Eds.). (1956). The Individual Psychology of Alfred Adler.
New York, NY: Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497.
Bowman, J.M. (2008). Gender role orientation and relational closeness: Self-disclosive behavior
in same-sex male friendships. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 16(3), 316-330.
Brennan, J. F. (1966). Friendship: The Adlerian mode of existence. Journal of Individual
Psychology, 22(1), 43-48.
Chu, J. Y., Porche, M. V., & Tolman, D. L. (2005). The adolescent masculinity ideology in
relationships scale development and validation of a new measure for boys. Men and
Masculinities, 8(1), 93-115.
Cicero (2009). Laelius de Amicitia (E.S. Shuckburgh, Trans). Retrieved January 11th, 2015 from
http://faculty.sgc.edu/rkelley/Laelius de Amicitia.pdf
Deresiewicz, W. (2009). Faux friendship. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 6. Retrieved from
http://www.chronicle.com/article/Faux-Friendship/49308 SPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP 53
Dreikurs, R., & Mosak, H. H. (1966). The tasks of life I: Adler's three life tasks. Individual
Psychologist, 4(1), 18-22. Retrieved from http://www.adlerjournals.com/IP/IP.htm
Dykstra, R. C. (2009). Subversive friendship. Pastoral Psychology, 58(5-6), 579-601.
Franklin, A. S. (2009). On loneliness. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 91(4),
343-354.
Friend [Def. 1]. (n.d.) Dictionary.com, Retrieved December 17th, 2015 from
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/friend
Greene, M. (2013, November 11). Touch isolation: How homophobia has robbed all men of
touch [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://goodmenproject.com/featured-
content/megasahd-touch-isolation-how-homophobia-has-robbed-men-of-touch/
Greene, M. (2015, February 26). Why do we murder the beautiful friendships of boys? [Web log
post]. Retrieved from http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/adult-male-lonliness-
megasahd/
Griffith, J., & Powers, R.I. (2007). The lexicon of Adlerian psychology: 106 terms associated
with the Individual Psychology of Alfred Adler. Port Townsend, WA: Adlerian
Psychology Associates.
Haraguchi, T. (2014). Philia as Agapé: The theme of friendship in the Gospel of John. Asia
Journal of Theology, 28(2), 250-262.
Hawkley, L. C., Browne, M. W., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2005). How can I connect with thee?
Psychological Science, 16(10), 798-804. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01617.x
Hill, W. (2015). Spiritual friendship. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press.
Huta, V., & Waterman, A.S. (2013). Eudaimonia and its distinction from Hedonia: SPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP 54
Developing a classification and terminology for understanding conceptual and
operational definitions. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14, 1425–1456.
Knapp, C.W., & Harwood, T.B. (1977). Factors in the determination of intimate same-sex
friendship. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 131, 83-90.
Kreuger, D. (2011). Between monks: Tales of monastic companionship in early Byzantium.
Journal of the History of Sexuality, 20(1), 28-61.
Lee, J. (2005, April). The man date. The New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/10/fashion/the-man-date.html?_r=0
Lewis, C.S. (2004). The four loves. In The beloved works of C.S. Lewis (pp. 211-288). New
York, NY. Inspirational Press (Original work published 1960)
Lewis, R.A. (1978). Emotional intimacy among men. Journal of Social Issues, 34(1), 108-121.
Linden, G.W. (2003). Friendship. Journal of Individual Psychology, 59(2) 156-165.
Mosak, H. & Maniacci, M. (1999). A primer on Adlerian Psychology. New York, NY: Taylor &
Francis Group.
Noell, B. (2002). Aelred of Rievaulx's appropriation of Augustine: A window on two views of
friendship and the monastic life. Cistercian Studies Quarterly, 37(2), 123.
O'Donahue, J. (2004). Anam Cara: A book of Celtic wisdom. New York, NY: Harper Perennial
Oransky, M., & Marecek, J. (2009). “I'm not going to be a girl”: Masculinity and emotions in
boys' friendships and peer groups. Journal of Adolescent Research, 24(2), 218-241.
Phelps, M. P., & Waalkes, S. (2009). Christian friendship as faculty development: A narrative
account. Journal of Education & Christian Belief, 13(2), 125-139.
Pringle, R. (2010). [Review of the book Inclusive masculinities: The changing nature of
masculinities by Eric Anderson]. Sociology of Sport Journal, 27, 319-322. SPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP 55
Redman, P., Epstein, D., Kehily, M. J., & Mac an Ghaill, M. (2002). Boys bonding: Same-sex
friendship, the unconscious and heterosexual discourse. Discourse, 23(2), 179-191.
Roberts, V. (2013). True friendship: Walking shoulder to shoulder. Leyland, England:
10Publishing
Roen, N. (2015, February 12th). Same-sex attraction in real life. [Web log post]. Retrieved from
http://spiritualfriendship.org/2015/02/12/same-sex-attraction-in-real-life/
Rokach, A., & Neto, F. (2005). Age, culture, and the antecedents of loneliness. Social Behavior
& Personality: An International Journal, 33(5), 477-494.
Rose, S. M. (1985). Same-and-cross-sex friendships and the psychology of homosociality. Sex
Roles, 12(1), 63-74.
Roy, R., Benenson, J. F., & Lilly, F. (2000). Beyond intimacy: Conceptualizing sex differences
in same-sex relationships. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied,
134(1), 93-101. doi:10.1080/00223980009600852
Russell, J. S. (2012). The dialogic of Ælred's spiritual friendship. Cistercian Studies Quarterly,
47(1), 47-69.
Schroeder, K. (2007). Friends in Christ: A theological analysis of Cicero, Augustine, and Aelred
on friendship. Vox Christi,1(2), 28-53.
Smith, C. (2014, January 8). The largest social networks in the world include some surprises.
Business Insider. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/the-largest-social-
networks-in-the-world-2013-12
Taylor, A. (2014, March 19th). Christianity and same-sex eros. [Web log post]. Retrieved from
https://spiritualfriendship.org/2014/03/19/christianity-and-same-sex-eros/ SPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP 56
Turner, A. (2015). Generation Z: Technology and social interest. The Journal of Individual
Psychology, 71(2), 103-113.
Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each
other. New York, NY. Basic Books
Victor, C. R., & Yang, K. (2012). The prevalence of loneliness among adults: A case study of the
United Kingdom. Journal of Psychology, 146(1/2), 85-104.
doi:10.1080/00223980.2011.613875
Wadell, P. (2002). Becoming friends: Worship, justice and the practice of Christian friendship.
Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press.
Watson, J., & Nesdale, D. (2012). Rejection sensitivity, Social withdrawal, and loneliness in
young adults. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(8), 1984-2005.
doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00927.x
Way, N. (1997). Using feminist research methods to understand the friendships of adolescent
boys. Journal of Social Issues, 53(4), pp. 703-723.
Way, N. (2012). Close friendships among adolescent boys. THYMOS: Journal of Boyhood
Studies, 6(2), 116-136.
Way, N. (2013). Boys' friendships during adolescence: Intimacy, desire, and loss. Journal of
Research on Adolescence, 23(2), 201-213.
Way, N., Cressen, J., Bodian, S., Preston, J., Nelson, J., & Hughes, D. (2014). 'It might be nice to
be a girl... Then you wouldn’t have to be emotionless': Boys' resistance to norms of
masculinity during adolescence. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 15(3), 241-252.
doi:10.1037/a0037262 SPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP 57
Williams, L. (2015, December 28). 6 ways social media is ruining our friendships. Relevant
Retrieved from http://www.relevantmagazine.com/culture/tech/6-ways-social-media-
ruining-our-friendships