John H Armstrong

When Jesus Met Mary: A Conference on Friendship with a Unique (and Controversial) Emphasis on Friendship with the Opposite Sex

Can men and women be close friends without the sex part getting in the way?

Can men and women who are married enjoy opposite sex friendships?

What would our marriages, our friendships, our churches, and our communities look like if men and women were not afraid of connecting with each other in deep ways?

What would male-female relationships look like in marriages and friendship if every man and woman could know the spiritual richness and beauty of oneness between genders?

These are the kinds of questions that grew out of my reading of a fine book I reviewed extensively on this site, December 21-24, 2010. I wrote long blogs about Sacred Unions, Sacred Passions, a ground-breaking and courageous book written by my good friend Dan Brennan. I believed then that it had something extremely important to say about real friendship to our modern over-sexualized culture, especially inside the Christian church. I believed, and believe even more now, that the absence of real friendship is destroying the life of the Spirit among us. This book is an important work that addresses the need for healing in this area of life together. 

Dan and I go back a very long way. I was his pastor in the 1980s. Quite honestly we had a tragic break in our relationship. That break lasted for more than a decade but after some years this broken friendship was beautifully healed. We were totally and completely reconciled and thus have enjoyed, for several years, a great (and very healthy) friendship. I tell you this story because it underscores an important point about my friend Dan Brennan. He practices what he preaches/writes! He is so refreshingly honest that some people do not like him for it. Plus, his understanding of a controversial subject is truly unique. But Dan is a man who makes friends and values his relationships very deeply. Like me he can be, and has been, hurt by friends who have turned against him. He has proven to be a true friend to me. I hope this friendship will continue to be the treasured by him as well. It is a powerful evidence of the kingdom to celebrate friendship with a person you once loved and then lost, only to regain that relationship with much greater depth and richness. 

This weekend I have the great privilege of sharing in a one-of-a-kind conference that Dan has planned for some months: When Jesus Met Mary: A Conference Exploring Friendship Between Men & Women. The event publicity says that it will seek to promote understanding, demystify the opposite sex (as if that were entirely possible, eh?), desexualize interactions between men and women, guide us in overcoming sexism, help us to tap into our deep longing to reflect the image of God and help us to enter into the deep unity and communion that God desires. 

I will speak on unity at the end of the event on Saturday afternoon and assist in serving the eucharist in the closing session at 3:40 p.m. The event begins with dinner at 6 p.m. this Friday evening, April 27. The speaker lineup includes some wonderful writers and thinkers, a few I know and more new people that I look forward to meeting. The meeting place for the conference is Life on the Vine, located at 5105 RFD, Arlington Heights Road, Long Grove, Illinois. 

You can register now. I urge you to do so and then attend this weekend. I'd love to see many of my Chicago friends. I do not believe that you will regret coming to this event. Even if the topic frightens you, and it does for many great people, come and learn. Listen, ask questions, think deeply. The price is reasonable and the fellowship and topic will both be truly unique. 

 

When Jesus Met Mary: A Sacred Friendship Gathering

This unique event, hosted by my dear friend, author and speaker Dan Brennan, will feature several interesting and engaging speakers, including yours truly. It will present a great opportunity for a kind of dialogue not generally welcomed in the church at large and includes a special opportunity to meet new friends in genuine conversation and fellowship. Please consider attending. Here is more information:

 

When Jesus Met Mary: A Sacred Friendship Gathering

Chicago, Illinois

April 27^th-28^th, 2012

A Conference Exploring Friendship Between Men and Women

Contact: Dan at [[email protected]]

When men and women come together, are the only options romance or danger?  Is sex the subtext of every male-female friendship?  Is true male-female friendship ever possible without uncomfortable tension, cynicism or second-guessing?

When Jesus met Mary in the garden, it was in friendship.  In the Gospel of John, before marriage, family or community, the risen Christ first attended to friendship.  Is it possible that we can learn to do the same - to build and attend to deep friendships for their own sake?  What would our marriages, relationships, churches and communities look like if men and women were not afraid of connecting with each other in deep friendship? 

On April 27^th and 28^th in Long Grove, Illinois, (a Chicago suburb) gather together with Kathy Escobar, Jim Henderson, Meredith Efken, John Armstrong, Katie Driver and Dan Brennan for a conversation about the power and potential of spiritual friendships between men and women. Join with other Christians who believe that Jesus has called us to a third way of being together, beyond fears, skepticism, myths and stereotypes. Together we will learn to be more like Jesus and Mary in the garden.

For more information, go to [http://sacredfriendshipgathering.com/]

Join us on Facebook: [https://www.facebook.com/events/227759470633542/]

 

Friendship and Psychological Visibility

Now and then I post a guest blog my readers are not likely to see unless I share it. Such is the case today. The author, Dr. Monte Wilson, is a true friend. We do not see one another face-to-face very often but when we do we instantly connect again in a deeply relational way. Monte is "my friend" in the very way he writes about friendship in this lovely article. This is why I am sure I resonnate so very deeply with this post.

 

Monte E. Wilson

Some years back, a man whom I had known for about 10 years was describing me to a new acquaintance of ours. It was all very positive and complimentary, but with one small problem:he wasn’t describing me. In fact, the more he waxed eloquent about the attributes and personality of Monte Wilson, the more invisible I felt. All I could do was sit there thinking, “You really don’t know me.”

A friend responds to me the same way I would if I were seeing and sensing myself through the mind of my friend. In other words, he acts as a mirror that reflects the image of how I see and experience myself. He sees what I know to be true of myself.  She senses how I experience life.  In other words, true friends are psychologically visible to each other.

Of course, friends also help us discover the, heretofore, unseen aspects of our true self. You’ve had this happen before, when a friend complimented or criticized you about something and you instantly intuited that, yes, “That’s me!”

            

This is how Nathaniel Branden defines psychological visibility in his book, The Psychology of Romantic Love. “Human beings desire and need the experience of self-awareness that results from perceiving the self as an objective existent, and they are able to achieve this experience through interaction with the consciousness of other living beings.”

            

But it is not just visibility that we desire. We also have a desire to love and to be loved.

It is not good that man should be alone. (Genesis 2:18)

There is something about the way we are made that needs relationships where there is a large degree of mutual visibility. My own thought here is that there are a number of reasons this is so. Two come to mind:

External validation and affirmation “You really are you!” However self-aware I am, however brutally honest with myself that I seek to be about the nature of my true self, I need feedback as to the veracity of my self-evaluation. Caveat: I am not referring to a craving for the approval of others, as if I were asking permission to be myself. I am referring to the acknowledgment that my evaluation of my self is, indeed, legitimate.

Mutual support I know that I need the love, gifts and wisdom of others to make my journey in this life. I instinctually know that it is neither right nor wise to be “alone.”  Think back to the stories many of us grew up reading: Arthur and the Knights of the Roundtable, Frodo and Samwise, The Three Musketeers, Harry with Ron and Hermione, Robin Hood and his Merry Men, King David and his Mighty Men, and Jesus and the Twelve.

            

Certainly, the mere fact that we are visible to someone doesn’t mean that we are going to be good friends. However, there can be no true emotional connection and companionship where there is little or no visibility. How can you say," I love you," if you are blind to the “you”? Am I really going to believe someone loves me who doesn’t Get Me, get who I am (“warts and all”)? And sometimes, even where an individual does see me, there is still the possibility that this person does not have the capacity for mutuality or desire for companionship with me. "Yes, dear, I see you. And I can't stand what I see!"

Of course, there is the experience of people who love us for whom they wish us to be. I am not referring here to those who truly see us, and the person we can become: I am speaking of those who project or fantasize or idealize the person they wish us to be. In these cases, we know that there is no reality, no substance, and no foundation for a true friendship. Where such blindness exists, we know that, sooner or later, the individual will “see the real me,” and the “relationship” will end.

True friendship requires visibility and mutuality.

When we encounter a person who thinks as we do, who notices what we notice, who values what we value, who tends to respond to different situations as we do, not only do we experience a strong sense of affinity with such a person but we also can experience our self through our perception of that person. This is another form of objectivity. This is another manner of perceiving our self in the world, external to consciousness … The pleasure and excitement that we experience in the presence of such a person, with whom we can enjoy this sense of affinity, underscores the importance of the need that is being satisfied. Branden

           

While Branden is specifically referring here to the basis for Romantic Love, it, nevertheless, applies to friendship, as well.

           

 I believe we were created with an innate desire to be with people who see and understand us, and with whom we share mutual beliefs, values and visions: people who understand our journeys, our struggles, and our achievements, and want to be a part of our lives, as we wish to be a part of theirs. These are the people whose empathy is most real to us and whose applause is most meaningful. These are the people whom we call friends.

Copyright, Monte E Wilson, 2011

 

Sacred Unions, Sacred Passions: Questions for the Author (Part Three)

Today I complete my three-part personal interview with author Dan Brennan about his engaging and controversial book, Sacred Unions, Sacred Passions. I would encourage you to not only read this online interview I’ve posted but to visit Dan’s web site and even sign up for his Facebook page. There you can engage with him more personally and discuss his ideas openly, in a manner that is non-threatening and truly gracious.

One reviewer of Dan’s book recently wrote:

Gendered stereotypes blocking friendship are notions like emotionally intimate, vulnerable friendships are for girls/women or gay men. In evangelical communities where romantic relationships are on a pedestal and friendships are inferior, gendered stereotypes and straitjackets are common.

My questions to Dan concluded with the following dialog.

Wouldn’t “face to face” intimacy in friendship threaten marriages and leave one vulnerable for a sexual fall?

We have to do a little tweaking of the metaphor to get some distance from romantic idealizing or gazing. For centuries prior to Freud intimacy in friendship meant emotional, spiritual intimacy, transparency, vulnerability, delight, and sweet language and affection—all of which we would now describe as characteristic of “face to face.”

“Face to face” in sexuality is as much about having friends as it is having lovers as Ronald Rolheiser says. Why is that? Sexuality is not limited or confined to a contemporary romantic version of love-- between men and women where emotional intimacy, companionship, delight, vulnerability, and commitment are only contained within marriage. Sexuality is not about idealizing certain body parts in marriage. Communion in sexuality is more than just experiencing orgasms between married lovers. It is embracing our divine calling to love our neighbor, our cross-gender neighbor as ourselves, and as Christ has loved us.

This has always been a concern in nurturing a face to face friendship with someone of the opposite sex to whom you are not married. In other words, the concern is that face to face leads to sexual intimacy with someone other than your spouse.

This has always been the concern for intimate friendship for the same sex friends or opposite sex friends. This was the concern for some in Saint Aelred’s time when he wrote on intimate platonic friendship. I think we can see where chastity was more complex among many communities in the monastic tradition. Some communities were fearful of “particular friendships” and enforced strict rules. A man could not spend time alone with a male friend.

In other communities, there were numerous stories of dyadic friendships full of mutual tenderness, mutual sweetness, and “heart-to-heart” transparency where sex never happened. Bernard of Clairvaux slept with men in the same bed. He also held hands with men.

In romantic love, face to face intimacy means we don’t impose our agendas on each other; we don’t use each other for our own instrumental purposes. Our care for each other is born out of face to face. Out of goodness and beauty expressed in face to face intimacy between husband and wife, the capacity to love others in face-to-face intimacy is born. Both spouses have to be on the same page or trust in each other as they nurture close bonds with others beyond the marriage. This trust can develop early on in the dating relationship as they discover the important relationships in each other’s lives.

Seeking to love others face to face requires us to address our deepest fears. It challenges our deepest, ingrain cultural stereotypes about relating to each other both in romantic relationship and non-romantic. Most of us (both men and women) in evangelical communities have been trained to act in a stereotypical masculine way toward members of the opposite sex: control, order, superficial emotional connectedness, very limited (if any) physical contact/affection. To move past that means we will have to probably experience some weirdness.

Loving one another face to face in non-romantic friendship transforms lust into healthy and maybe even passionate attraction for the good and beautiful in the other. It dismantles sexism in the relationship and serves as a model for all. Appropriate and healthy responses to embodied beauty in friendship intimacy draw us to a healthy, robust, deep communion.

You reach out to singles in your book and invite them to intimate platonic friendships. You yourself are close to a couple of single women. Can singles find satisfying intimacy in friendship sans sex?

As you know, John, singles are a huge part of our churches and society now. I think intimate cross-gender friendship presents itself as a powerful expression of intimacy for singles. It is possible to enjoy communion with an opposite sex friend while one is single and waiting to marry. In friendship, singles choose to truly open themselves up to the beauty of others in face to face intimacy. Many adult men and women know how to express tenderness and sweetness toward the member of the opposite sex only within a romantic relationship.

But in so much of the evangelical sub-culture singles are discouraged from giving themselves fully, from giving their hearts fully within platonic friendship. Most singles in the evangelical sub-culture are taught to see the opposite sex in two groups: either romantic possibilities or married (off limits or having no friendship currency). They are taught to maintain a guarded distance with their heart with exception of the person they are dating. Is this the only alternative for singles within the evangelical community?

What does the virtue of chastity look like for singles in the evangelical sub-culture when most evangelical communities insist that friendship with the opposite sex is inherently sexualized? Margaret Kim Peterson and Dwight Peterson, in their newest book, lament how many young people on the verge of adulthood think that romance/marriage is the only possible relationship in which to experience deep and lasting friendship. What they are observing is how the evangelical community has created its own subculture of sexualizing friendship.

I think evangelicals need to seriously rethink culturally-bound stereotypes of chastity, distance, and fear. Beginning with Jesus the call to love one another is not sex-segregated. Nor is it a call to accept “second-best” options until one finds the “one” in a path of romantic friendship. Al Hsu and others have pointed out that in the New Testament friendship is the highest virtue, not romance.

This is not to reject romance altogether. But the virtue of chastity calls us to love one another and is critically evaluate romantic scripts. I would argue that singles are called to love—and learn to love others for their sake, with their full hearts ready to engage in loving, authentic, life-giving friendship.

Chaste love for singles would not mean leaving their sexuality or their hearts at the door of friendship. Sexuality is a deep, beautiful, good, desire/energy that is expressed in a longing to know and be known by others at intimate levels in marriage and friendship. Friendship is not about repressing our sexuality as we love our friends. How would we do that? How would we define and parse out what parts of us are sexual in friendship and what parts are not? The immediate popular answer in evangelical circles has tended toward a genital-focus with a list of specific behaviors relating to sexual arousal or hopeful outcome of sex (dating).

But can we isolate sexuality in ourselves that way? How healthy is it? I see chastity in the 21^st century calling us all—men, women, married and single—to embrace embodied sexuality in marriage, friendship, and community. Is there not a place for fully engaged and fully present emotional and physical tenderness in non-romantic relationships?

I am in agreement with David Benner and others that our embodied sexuality is an ever-present invitation – indeed, a call – to passionate life and love in our relationships beyond the one with whom we share a bed. The biggest issue in sexuality and friendship for singles is the same one married people encounter once the fantasy of romance diminishes: Can we learn to love members of the opposite sex face to face? Are we able to let go of our fears and our culturally-bound romantic stereotypes and evangelical stereotypes to truly learn to receive beauty from the other and to truly give beauty to the other? Face to face intimacy is always powerful, transforming, and life-giving with or without sex.

Sacred Unions, Sacred Passions: Questions for the Author (Part Two)

Today, I continue with the questions I began in yesterday’s interview with author and friend Dan Brennan. Here are some more questions I posed in my online interview about his very important book. 

Why would it be wise and chaste to nurture authentic communion (“face to face” and “side-by-side”) beyond your spouse, with your cross-gender friend?

I would suggest this is where we have to think more deeply about chastity and communion in our communities. The notions of union or communion are making a comeback among evangelical theologians like Scot McKnight, Kevin Vanhoozer, and yourself. What does oneness and chastity look like for men and women? I would argue it’s in the nature of robust and wise chastity to seek communion. Kenda Creasy Dean made this observation “chastity seeks communion.” The Catholic Catechism states that chastity leads to deep spiritual communion between members of the same sex or opposite sex.

As we nurture and cultivate chastity in our marriage and in friendship, chastity actually will mean desiring more not less. We desire more of the new creation (love, trust, mutuality, vulnerability) in relationship and less of the old (sexism, lust, power, objectification, and so on). If we seek to nurture a face to face intimacy with our spouses we are less likely to see them as replaceable even in the presence of a dearly loved cross-gender friend whom we’ve come to know as also “irreplaceable.” We will see their spiritual beauty, and our attraction for them will deepen beyond sexual/romantic attraction.

Oneness is what Christ prays for us (John 17). Christ came not to just reduce the old disorder of lust, violence, and oppression between men and women, but to usher us into a new world of embodied communion with each other. Intimate platonic friendship is a particular expression of oneness, an embodied witness to something different than idealized sexualized friendships. The phrase “intimate platonic” sounds like a contradiction to most contemporary evangelicals. But this is where evangelicals have so focused one on a single expression of oneness (romantic sexuality) to the neglect of chastity and a flourishing oneness in community.

Lisa McMinn states that in our fundamental longing for unity, communion, and intimacy we are reflecting the image of God. We are all hard-wired for communion and intimacy—not just in marriage but beyond.

But surely you’re not suggesting every spouse run out tomorrow and strive to develop an intimate cross-gender friendship?

No. The virtue of chastity is an authentic practice of love and the sacred expression of sexuality in marriage, friendship and community. Chastity is the goal for all people single or married alike, no matter where they are. Not everyone is in the same place. Chastity is the virtue to love others and not use them. This virtue doesn’t drop out of the sky and zap us into chaste relationships. It takes practice and growth in relationship. It is about learning to love others well and honoring them including your spouse.

Seeking to cultivate a close bond with a cross-gender friend because of an unhappy marriage is red flag territory. Also, seeking to be transparent with your cross-gender friend when your spouse is not on the same page with you is a red flag. For some, certain high boundaries need to be in place.

Chaste love embraces the complex reality of seeking the well-being of another, seeking the good of another, seeking to love others for who they are instead of using them for our purposes. It is one thing if you are married and don’t have any strong cross-gender friendships. The married person must consider their spouse’s feelings on their cross-gender journey. That is not an issue if you are single with no close cross-gender friendships. In either case, one expression of chastity is about nurturing trust and safety with our neighbor (including our spouse).

But chastity also recognizes the sexual brokenness between men and women including unhealthy romantic absorption. What does chastity say to us about the myth of our romanticized soul mate culture? Has chastity nothing to say but “yes” to a hyper-sexualized culture where sexual chemistry and intense romantic intimacy are the true markers for “real” love? Isn’t C. S. Lewis’ definition of “face to face” love vulnerable to creating an inward-looking couple constantly seeking to recreate romantic self-absorption between each other?

Furthermore, chastity recognizes that for most of human history men have been considered to be the superior ones for leadership, friendship, and ministry. Chastity is not about maintaining the status quo and remaining stuck in repeating old stereotypes of masculinity and femininity.

Sacred Unions, Sacred Passions: Questions for the Author (Part One)

Last year (December 21-24) I wrote a series of blogs reviewing a controversial but extremely important book on friendships. This book, Sacred Unions, Sacred Passions: Engaging the Mystery of Friendship Between Men and Women, is written by my friend Dan Brennan. I mentioned at the time that I did not particularly want to delve into this subject, knowing quite well that some would react against the book and even against my giving it this kind of attention. I also mentioned my concerns and cautions but these seemed to have been missed by critics.

I’ve thought a great deal about this book, and discussed it even more with the author and others (including some critics), since the end of last year. I believe that Dan is saying a great deal of very important stuff about friendship that is too easily missed by the controversial subject matter of males and females as close friends. As a result of a continuing dialog I decided to put some of my questions to Dan and ask him to respond.

What follows is an interview that will prompt more thought about what Dan is saying, and not saying, in this important book.

The most provocative point in your book, is that the Christian story is calling men and women to live in deep relational unity. In other words, you argue that men and women are called into authentic loving communion not just in marriage but in nonromantic friendship as well.

Yet, the United States has one of the highest divorce rates in the world. Conventional wisdom would say it would be unwise to risk one’s marriage for an intimate cross-gender friendship given we live in a divorce culture.

How do you respond to such statistics?

Great question! On the surface, it would seem counterintuitive. However, I would suggest we need to pause and ask what the virtue of chastity means in the 21^st century. Lauren Winner’s book, Real Sex addressed certain aspects of chastity. So did Christine Colón and Bonnie Field in their book, Singled Out. Toward the end of the book they look to what Catholics have thought about the virtue. Several years back before I wrote Sacred Unions, Sacred Passions I discovered the rich depth of the virtue by reading what Pope John Paul II, Ronald Rolheiser, Vincent Genovesi, and others had to say on the subject.

Although it’s popularly misunderstood to mean the same thing as celibacy, it is not. To be chaste as Rolheiser observes, means to experience reverence, reverence for other, reverence for the power of sex and sexuality, reverence for sin. Chastity does not require a list of universal, once-and-for-all thou shalt not’s. (“You shall not be alone with a member of the opposite sex, you shall not ever be physically affectionate and tender toward someone from the opposite sex, etc.). In fact, as I have studied what others believe about chastity (Protestants, Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox) it is not about developing a list of overly-scripted rules for the leaders and everyone in the community to follow. The virtue of chastity resists uniformity.

Jesuit author James Martin declares that the main goal of chastity is to love as many people as deeply as possible. Genovesi talks about chastity as under the control of love with tenderness and full awareness of the other. Prior to my research I never associated chastity with tenderness and presence—awareness of the other. Chastity in my mind meant not having sex—having very little to do with the bigger issues dividing men and women. Ever since then I have sought to integrate deep tenderness in my friendships.

I saw then that the virtue of chastity addresses issues of our culture which contribute to the high divorce rate. It is not just about avoiding inappropriate sex. It is that, but it is much bigger, deeper, and broader than that. What does it mean for men and women living in the 21^st century to deeply love each other with tenderness and full awareness of the other? That’s what the virtue of chastity deals with.

In this vein, chastity is mission between men and women in this world and how we are to love each other within our communities. Hollywood exalts sexualized friendship as the be-all, end-all for living on the one hand (since their characters never experience communion with God, sexualized friendship in the moment is the only communion to experience) and hardly ever portrays men and women who passionately love each with no sex or romance in their relationship.

Yet, ironically, I don’t think it is too farfetched to say this same thing is happening in most evangelical communities. Evangelicals preach romance and marriage. Beyond that, are heavily-scripted rules reinforcing what Hollywood depicts—very few non-romantic friendships. This is an area where we are truly called to not be conformed to the patterns of this world. We are not called to be hyper-romantic conformists. In this sense, we are called to nonconformity. Chastity is a big Yes! toward authentic, life-giving love in friendships.

The virtue of chastity then, addresses the big issues of friends with benefits, hooking up, gender differences at home, workplace, and church, romanticized Freudian sexuality (which I would argue contributes to the high divorce rate even among Christians) and overly-scripted rules of fear and boundaries between those who are not in a romantic relationship.

So, you would argue that a robust view of chastity integrates “face to face” and “side by side” in friendship?

Many present day evangelicals accept C.S. Lewis’ gendered division of romantic love and friendship love. In his book, Four Loves, Lewis writes, “Lovers are always talking to one another about their love; Friends hardly ever about their Friendship. Lovers are normally face to face, absorbed in each other; Friends, side by side, absorbed in some common interest.”

Yet, not all “face-to-face” intimacy is romantic love. Many female friendship scholars attest to the reality that female friendships are face to face. In many evangelical popular books, deep, face to face friendships are encouraged among evangelical women. Evangelical author Dee Brestin in her best-selling book, The Friendships of Women believes there is a distinction between marriage (“one flesh”) and “one soul” friendship. The latter is a union of hearts and minds, but not of bodies.

Historically, before Freud and the cluster of Eastern European sexologists (such as Havelock Ellis) in the 19^th century, deep friendships were face to face and side by side—even alongside marriage. William Wirt wrote to his bride in 1803, “O! my Betsy, my soul assures me that we were indeed made for each other… How delightful it is thus to love you!” Yet in his very close friendship with Dabney Carr, Wirt wrote to Carr, “My heart is so friendly feminine that I can’t hold out [from writing to you]…To be sure, we are both married—but is that any reason why we should cease to love each other? Answer, ‘no.’”

While Wirt was expressing great happiness with Elizabeth in their marriage years later, he wrote to Carr that filing away his old letters was “one of the purest, tenderest, holiest banquets that the heart of man can know.” He wrote to Carr again and told him that his letters were among his “most valued treasures.”

Tomorrow: More Questions

Why I Love Fr. Joe Girzone and Support Joshua Mountain Ministries

Each month Father Joe Girzone writes a news and prayer letter for friends and people who support his mission on Joshua Mountain. During my three days with Joe I saw him take phone calls from people as far away as Japan and as close as near-by Albany. He referred to his large “parish” several times. I soon became aware that he was not exaggerating at all. I was amazed at how he listened and interacted with everyone, many of them people he had not met in the flesh at all. At times he was extremely funny and at others most serious and helpful. He was always joyful and always quick with his wit. Joe just lights up around people and brings joy to them with great blessing. The presence of Jesus is quite real in his simple, unpretentious, very human presence.

I can tell you that Fr. Joe’s parish is genuinely represented by people from all over the world. He responded to emails late into the evening and talked with workers around his home during the day. He met new people in Albany, and the nearby village of Altamont, and engaged with everyone in a deeply personal way. He called on the grieving and comforted them during the time I was with him. He shows respect and dignity to everyone, just like the One he so deeply loves, Joshua.

In June Joe wrote in his “News from Joshua Mountain” the following:

Frequently throughout each month I come across more and more hurting people.  I either meet them when outside and end up talking to them or they come to visit or call to talk to me.  The pain and heartaches in their lives overwhelms me sometimes.  I am becoming more and more convinced that most people have been damaged in some way, either by others' abuse or neglect, or rejection, meanness, contempt, abandonment, hatred, or by being treated as if they don't exist by those who should love them. Some people's personalities have been severely crippled by genetic damage which often conditions them in a way difficult to control towards behavior which is unacceptable by society. They end up in prison, where they are punished severely. A truly Christian society following the mind and heart of Jesus, who said, "It is not the death of a sinner that I desire, but that he be converted and live," should be more concerned about healing damaged and broken people than treating them like animals in cages. Our highly enlightened society has more people in prison than any other country in the world, with almost four times as many in prison than the country with the next highest number which is Australia. And I know cynics will ridicule this out of ignorance and contempt for Jesus' mentality. But, if people who come to me broken, came to them on a regular basis, even their eyes would be opened and they would soon see what many of us see in the lives of damaged people. And I am perhaps more sincerely concerned than cynics about the victims of crimes also. It is easy for a cynic to say something smart but I rarely see them doing anything helpful in real life. There brilliance is limited to rocking chair commenting.

I am coming to see more and more why Jesus calls himself the Good Shepherd.  Only he sees the almost universal extent of human suffering and to give us hope in our pain and hopelessness, tells us, "Do not be afraid. I am the Good Shepherd. I know your pain, and I wander day and night through the world trying to find you and heal you, so you may be able continue your pilgrimage through this world and reach out to others you meet and help them too. Always know that I love you and I will always be there for you, all of you, who are hurting and have been hurt by others.

I read this news before I met Joe and spent three days with him on Joshua Mountain. I’ve been reading his news for about a year now. I can tell you this is genuinely representative of the real man who writes these readable and simple best-sellers. He cares about people because he loves Jesus so very deeply.  

After I visited Joshua Mountain Fr. Joe wrote his July “News from Joshua Mountain.” This reveals the very things I write above and is the truth about the friend I made in June.

This past month has been a busy month in a number of ways.  My parish has grown significantly. I know I don't have a canonical parish, but as providence would have it, a parish spontaneously developed, making my priesthood an enjoyable, though at times, a stressful ministry. Whenever I notice this, my memory drifts back to a congratulations card I got when I retired in 1980.  A Protestant lady sent me a beautiful card congratulating me on my new parish. I was stunned because, I was told by my doctor that I might have only six months to live. He insisted that I retire from my unusually stressful parish work.

It was only a short time after I retired that I received the card from that lady. I called to thank her and told her that my dangerous health condition necessitated my retirement.  She said immediately, "You're not retiring, Father, you are going to have a parish that will be worldwide.” I just smiled and thanked her for her kind wishes. That was 31 years ago.

For almost three years after that I was unable to work or move around for more than two or three hours when I had to lie down and rest. That was four or five times a day. I followed strictly my doctor's orders and stuck to my diet. For the first two years one of my sisters let me stay with her even though I was not the best house guest, then an undertaker friend let me live in an unrented bungalow she owned and I lived there for four years while I wrote JOSHUA. Shortly after that my strength began to come back and I was able to work five or six hours without resting. In time JOSHUA spread throughout the whole world and was put in Buddhist monastery libraries in India. Priests in mission countries translated it into their languages and used the translation in their parishes in Pakistan, and Nepal and in other places. In time, demands came for speaking engagements which brought me, and later on Sister Dorothy with me, to China, Australia, Scotland, Belgium, Germany, Canada, and most of the states in our own country. People from all these places still keep in touch and share the happy and sad times in their lives.

Now, though I am 81 and am not able to go far from my house for long periods of time, I am still able to continue my work as a priest. What a wonderful invention computers are! My computer was set up with very high speed capability, and I can now have teleconferencing sessions with my friends around the world and through Skype can give live video talks to groups here and in other countries. I videoed my dear friend, Koji Yamazaki, last night. He had done a very professional Japanese translation of JOSHUA six years ago and it has spread all over Japan. And this morning I had a delightful session with another friend in The Netherlands, Jan van der Boom. When he called I was sitting in front of the computer shaving, and when my teleconferencing kicked in immediately, I could see myself on the screen sitting there in my tee shirt and shaving. He got a big laugh out of that because he could see me, too.

So, I am finally realizing that I still have a parish, and my parishioners are the most wonderful people in the whole world. But now to get back down to earth! In the beginning of June I was asked by my new publisher, Orbis Press, to go to Chicago for a Publishers Convention. Orbis, introduced our new book, THE HOMELESS BISHOP, to the booksellers market and it received a very good reception. I am so happy with my new publishers. They are such gracious people to work with, and have already initiated a wide publicity program throughout the country and are very enthusiastic about the book's potential. That will be such a big help. 

To my surprise my friend then wrote about our visit in June by adding:

I also had a most pleasant visit from another dear friend, John Armstrong from Chicago. John is a Dutch Reformed theologian and our theological beliefs are very much in harmony. We had long and very frank discussions about so many topics, and we both needed a mental rest when the visit ended.

Joe ended his July “News from Joshua Mountain” by adding:

If any of you would like to make a small donation to help our ministry, it would be a big help. I have tried to do it myself for the past 29 years, but I don't have the resources anymore.

I am committed to helping Joe in whatever small ways that I can. I have already sent a generous gift. You can send a tax-deductible gift to:

Joshua Mountain Ministries

1071 Joshua Lane

Altamont, NY 12009

I encourage you to get to know him, receive his monthly news, and read the books I mentioned two days ago. If you live near Albany or can get there be sure to plan on one of Joe’s Tuesday evening talks. You can also subscribe to his monthly news, as I do, by writing him directly at: [email protected]. You should also visit the Joshua Mountain web site.

Canucks Win! Canucks Win!

I was not always a hockey fan. I grew up in the South when there were only six NHL teams thus I had no understanding of this great sport. My dad took me to my first game at age 8 or 9. It was in Chicago when we visited the city in February of one year. I thought, as only a little boy, “This is a rough and fast game.” I was right. It is the fastest thing on ice.

Since I’ve never had a huge love affair with Chicago teams I saw a few Blackhawks games over my 41-plus years in Chicago. But I never got into the team or the sport that much. Then I met a Christian brother in the mid-1990s in Vancouver while doing a weekend conference in a church. Later that brother (Paolo, at the far right in the photo with me, my daughter Stacy, and my son Matthew, on Easter Sunday afternoon this week) became a good friend through an Internet relationship that then turned into a close face-to-face friendship. I was stunned when I found out that my friend was one of three brothers who owned the Vancouver Canucks. (I had not known this at all when we were getting acquainted. Paolo is not proud nor does he act like a “big time owner” of a major sports franchise. He is a deeply serious Christian but enjoys life, is very creative, and cares about people.) We then spent some time together in our home in May, 2009, and I was invited to see my first Canucks game an evening later. I was hooked on the sport and the team immediately. I have a signed jersey from 2009, with a photo of me and Paolo inside the box frame, mounted on a special "sports" wall in my home. Over the last two years I’ve followed the Canucks with a growing passion. I saw them play at the Rogers Arena in November 2009. I’ve seen them play the Blackhawks six times over the last three post-seasons in Chicago. (My record is 3-3.) I saw Game Three and Game Six this year. Last night was the decisive Game Seven. My friend had to be away from home all day on Easter Sunday (there was a game in Chicago) so took the train from the city to Carol Stream and worshiped with us on Easter and came to our son’s home for our family lunch. We again enjoyed the sweetest of Christian friendship together.

So, with all this in mind you might now realize why I was rooting, I mean really rooting, for the Canucks to win last night. Just near midnight Chicago time Stacy and I almost went into fits of delirium when the Canucks star Alex Burrows scored the overtime winning goal to eliminate Chicago, their playoff nemesis. (Anita was in dreamland!) It was really sweet. In fact, it was one of my happier moments in my long interest in sports. Why? I have a real personal interest in a team that I have come to know a great deal about and in a person who I count as my friend, a friend who is deeply related to his city and their beloved hockey team. Vancouver will be a happy place today. I wish it to them. They hosted the Olympics and won the Gold Medal. Now if they can win the Stanley Cup it will be true delight for so many.

So if you heard a huge sigh of relief last night, and a big yell that rocked a house, it likely came from our home in Carol Stream when the Canucks won 2-1 in sudden death overtime in one of the more thrilling hockey games I’ve ever seen. Chicago has every reason to be proud of their champions. Now I hope my team wins the coveted Stanley Cup this year. It would be Vancouver’s first in their 40-year history as a franchise in the NHL. There are three more series to go so it is a big hill to climb but I will be rooting seriously for a team that I actually know a lot about from a very unique  and wonderful perspective: “Friendship.”

The Greatest Thrill on Ice

I enjoy a very special friendship with a brother in Christ who is one of the owners of the Vancouver Canucks hockey team. As a result of my friendship, and my real love for hockey, I have adopted the Canucks as my favorite team in the NHL. I have even had the privilege of seeing a game at the Rogers Center in Vancouver and sitting with my friend. I saw the inside of the arena and the entire operation. It was an exciting night in late 2009.

My Chicago friends are surprised, once again, that I root against my home town team but so be it. Friends trump towns unless it is the Atlanta Braves and/or the Alabama Crimson Tide, which are just too deeply rooted in my childhood and the impact of my dad on my life.

Tonight offered me one of the true thrills of my post-season hockey experience -- seeing the Canucks beat the Blackhawks 3-2 to go up three games to none in the first round of the post-season. If I believed in conspiracy theories I would be convinced the NHL wanted Chicago to win the way the game was called by the referees. But the Canucks showed class and skill and won in the final period. When the Hawks pulled their goaltender in the last 90 seconds it was tense but the Canucks defense was ready.

Stacy and I were given some of the best tickets in the arena --  seventeen rows from the ice in the corner just above the goal. You could see the whole flow of the game and when the action was right in front of us it was downright palpable. I actually felt my strength ebb away in the last few minutes. One of the trials of my fatigue syndrome is related to stress management and this was fun but stressful. I’m not sure I can watch much more of this kind of game in person. The place was so loud, the energy off the charts high and the pace of the game unbelievable. After it was all over we just sat there and relaxed until the building was nearly empty. What a great evening. If Vancouver wins Tuesday they finally finish off the Hawks who have tormented them the last two seasons in the post-season playoffs by ending their dream of their first ever Stanley Cup championship.

On Delivering Reproof in Love

For as long as I can remember I have found that few Christians know how to deliver reproof to their brothers and sisters in a way that is effective and humane. We have turned “speaking the truth in love” into a virtual blank check to correct others at any time and in any form we think permissible.

Our reasoning seems simple enough. The Scripture speaks of loving reproof and the wounds of a friend. We then take these kinds of wisdom texts and immerse them in our personality and emotional life. Then we feel free to correct almost at will. Blogs have made this even easier. I tried to refer to something like this about six months ago and it was widely misunderstood.

I receive reproof routinely. I suppose this goes with the territory if you write publicly. The logic seems to be that a writer must be willing to take anything since they posted their comments online. I understand the argument but I simply do not agree with it. If a person is my friend I deal with them accordingly. If they are not then I treat them as I would want to be treated, in public or in private.

A friend recently commented on this problem by writing:

My sorrow over how some people respond to you has little to do with their opposition to your posts and your position---that's a different reaction altogether.

My sorrow is that persons who are supposed to have the heart of pastors, friends, brothers, etc. would approach anyone in an arrogant, ungracious, and unloving manner. I often think that when I see some of the reactions people give to one another in written form: "There's not an ounce of love to be detected in this!"

Honestly, if you thought your own son were making some bad choices, how you would approach him? I have had to repent of this mode of “setting people straight” a l-o-n-g time ago. In the process of growing up, I had to learn that ideological purity in any arena of disagreement should never trump love or relationship. The non-Christian world understands this better than many of us. How much more should the Christian community "get" this?      

I am struck by my friend’s words about the non-Christian world. I think one reason Christian’s react to each other as they do is because they have neither grown up emotionally nor understood that their role is not to be “setting people straight” all the time.              

"For one human being to love another: 
that is perhaps the most difficult of all our tasks,
the last test and proof, the work for which
all other work is but preparation."
     ~  Rainer Maria Rilke