The trouble with sexual temptation and sin is that they compromise relationships. I can't have the kind of close relationships with guys that I might want to have because:
- close cross gender friendships can have the appearance of immorality, leading others into sin or bringing the name of Jesus into disrepute
- close cross-gender relationships might lead me into immorality
- close cross-gender relationships may tempt my friend to sin.
But if homosexuality is normalised in our society, will the problems of cross gender friendships also be the problems of same sex friendships? Will I be discouraged away from having close girl friends in case such relationships are (or appear to be) sexual? Will we warn our single friends of the dangers of flatting with another girl or confiding in another girl? Will all close friendships be seen as suspicious? Will all our relationships be compromised?
This may seem a long way off, but I can see a world full of very lonely people in the future (and now as well). Temptation and immorality will only increase if close, healthy, chaste friendships are wanting. But in a world of sexual confusion, how is friendship possible?
Any ideas?
I've wondered the same, actually.
ReplyDeleteI think the day has come, Simone. That is, people already wonder aloud if close friends of the same sex (especially who live together) are gay. (My impression is that this is more strongly the case for women than for men, but it might just be the circles I move in.)
ReplyDeleteI think this is a wonderful opportunity for the church to provide an alternative culture as we show the world that Jesus' reign is good. The church should be a place where friendship (same-gender and opposite-gender) is real and valued and valuable (and not sexualized). We are supposed to base our relationships on a family model (e.g. 1 Tim 5:1-2), which provides both intimacy and purity.
The problem is, many of us are not very good at this at the moment. We tend to be individualistic, cliquey, and focused on coupling up. There are some structural changes we could make to encourage more healthy friendships, and I guess we also need a call to repentance on this.
Hi Stuart. Thanks for commenting.
ReplyDeleteI like what you've said:
'The church should be a place where friendship (same-gender and opposite-gender) is real and valued and valuable (and not sexualized)'
Agree wholeheartedly. So much that I want to say to hell with temptation and the appearance of evil. Friendship is too important to sacrifice! Trouble is, because of our fallen hearts, the brother-sister thing is very hard to do. I don't think it's just the problems of selfishness and coupledom that you listed, but that we are so screwed up by our culture, our upbringing and our sin, that non-sexual relationships are very difficult for us to manage.
I'd love to hear more of your thoughts about what repentance might look like.
Stuart. I like what you say about non-sexualised friendships. They are absolutely crucial. Because I reckon that it's totally unfair and unreasonable (and perhaps unrealistic) to tell the non-marrieds in our gospel community to not have sex when we who are their friends refuse to provide them with Christ-like intimacy.
ReplyDeleteThis is an excellent question Simone. And, like you, I want to throw caution to the wind and just love people. But I don't trust me or them. Or those looking on.
Stuart?
Don't forget that the normalisation of homosexuality is just a gateway to the normality of other perversion. Get rid of your pets now and save any heartache.
ReplyDeleteBeing an Atheist is awesome. We get to have close friends without being terrified of accidentally sleeping with them, or having them accidentally sleep with us, regardless of their gender.
ReplyDeleteThe world of a Christ follower sometimes baffles me...
I am a guy who tends to relate easier to girls than guys, for some reason, and this whole situation has always been a frustation to me, that my friendship would be percieved in wrong ways.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that I value highly in blogging, is the fact that I get to do this (ie, relate to friends who are women) in a pretty non-threatening, safe way, that is less likely to be taken the wrong way.
I'm concerned that you think homosexuality is an option... I would never choose to have a homosexual relationship, so just because it becomes more accepted for other people to do so doesn't mean I'm more likely to do it. It's not like it's a fad, or anything.
ReplyDeleteAlso, maybe it's more a problem of other people looking at your friendships and being critical, almost like it's -their- problems causing -your- problem, which isn't fair of course.
I'm blessed that my friends don't judge me based on the appearance of a particular friendship, and that I can have fulfilling relationships with all kind of people, hetero male/female, gay male/female, without suddenly being accused of inappropriateness.
Perhaps society, especially conservative religious society, needs to be less hostile to human relationships. 'But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. "Do not fear what they fear ; do not be frightened."' (That's from Peter 3, can't remember the verse)
We should not be afraid to have healthy relationships because some close-minded people feel that they look homosexual or unchaste. It is not a fault or sin of yours, Simone, that the people around you judge you falsely for doing the right thing: connecting to humans in healthy relationships.
>>>Al Bain said>>>"I like what you say about non-sexualised friendships. They are absolutely crucial. Because I reckon that it's totally unfair and unreasonable (and perhaps unrealistic) to tell the non-marrieds in our gospel community to not have sex when we who are their friends refuse to provide them with Christ-like intimacy."
ReplyDeleteThat's such a great point. I know a few blokes working out how they ought to express their sexuality given their homosexual desires, and they generally tell me that good, genuine and healthy relationships with people of the same gender is a real blessing in their fight against those desires. As opposed to being a temptation, those relationships can be a healing balm.
>>>Mr Snuffle said>>>"Being an Atheist is awesome. We get to have close friends without being terrified of accidentally sleeping with them, or having them accidentally sleep with us, regardless of their gender.
ReplyDeleteThe world of a Christ follower sometimes baffles me..."
hehe... I don't think terrified is the right word, mate. Being a Christian kinda means you don't have to be terrified of anything.
But perhaps I shouldn't comment in so off-topic a manner here...
I find this really fascinating - I wonder how much of the problems people have with this is to do with people worrying so much about being tempted/having the appearance of being tempted that they just start thinking about friendships in terms of sexuality first. Ie. the fear causes the problem in the first place.
ReplyDeleteIt seems very sad to me that people would avoid friendships with the other gender for fear of what other people think.
But then I'm strange. I tend to think if you don't want to cheat, then the solution is easy - don't cheat. And trust God to not tempt you beyond what you can bear.
I tend to think if you don't want to cheat, then the solution is easy - don't cheat.
ReplyDeleteBut the thing is, Amy, it can never be as clear-cut as this because we will always have a fallen nature battling with our regenerating one. So it's not about whether you want to do something, but about which 'nature' is stronger.
Do I ever want to sin again?
No.
Am I going to?
Yes.
Ben - this is where the "i'm strange" thing comes in.
ReplyDeleteYou see, I was blessed/cursed with a overinflated and obsessive self-control complex. I have absolutely no sympathy for people who cheat because I just don't understand how anybody who has made a promise to be faithful can justify being anything but. Emotions just don't come into it. You said you wouldn't so you just don't. No matter what.
Again, this is my own thing, and as my husband points out (often), I'm not normal.
Hi Amy. You promised to love your husband. Do you do that 100% of the time? Why not? You promised you would!
ReplyDeleteSexual unfaithfulness may seem like a huge distance away from where you are now, but if taken in baby steps over a long time it's quite achievable.
The way we 'trust God not to tempt us beyond what we can bear' is to heed his warnings about the sinfulness of our hearts and not think there is any sin into which we can't fall. Most of us need safety barriers put up to stop us taking the baby steps that will lead us into sin.
Simone,
ReplyDeleteI wonder if you are making an assumption at that point. I'm not sure I promised to love Robyn with 100% of my capacity or time - I think implicit in the wedding vows is a promise to be faithful even when it's hard to love.
There's a difference. I think you've just killed a poor strawman.
Apologies for leading the band of merry atheists here. I think they think you're scared of boys.
Baby steps is the thing for me. Slippery slopes never seem like slopes. Not to me anyway.
ReplyDeleteWe've got to get our theology right here. Until we get to the new creation we're all a heartbeat away from doing something really stupid. It's true that thanks to Jesus we're no longer in Adam. But Adam is still in us.
To further clarify why I think love and faithfulness are different kettles of fish - I can oscillate on how much I love my wife without violating my wedding vows - that's normal and human.
ReplyDeleteI can not commit an act of unfaithfulness and be faithful to my wedding vows.
Love is an abstract noun, faithfulness is more concrete.
I'm with Al.
ReplyDeleteFor me: to love someone (as an action) IS faithfulness. Not talking about emotions here - emotions are untrustworthy and unreliable. If I make a marriage vow I have to know that I would keep it, otherwise I wouldn't make that vow. And I promised that I would be faithful, so I will, even if my emotions wanted me to do otherwise.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I think I have confused the issue here, and this is a post/introspection for my own blog...
The main point I was trying to make is that isn't it feasible that by concentrating so much on 'will I turn this into a sexually tempting relationship' you end up thinking about everything in sexual terms instead of just seeing people as whole people, not just one aspect?
I think our problem is we're told to flee sexual immorality - and we think this means flee the perception of sexual immorality - or we've somehow created a culture where being "friends" isn't possible, and worse, is immoral.
ReplyDeleteWithout going into the whole homosexuality thing I think we've created a bunch of odd cultural problems because we're so scared of a slippery slope.
Unfaithfulness happens because people are stupid. It doesn't happen because people are friends.
You could argue by analogy using alcohol and drunkenness - many of us don't avoid alcohol though its consumption has the capacity to be sinful.
The problem is with the assumptions the rest of us make not the actions of individuals.
Why are we so keen to judge and assess the relationships other people have? Granted there needs to be some discernment, and there are plenty of helpful cultural guidelines for avoiding immorality.
But at some point we've got to trust the Christ that indwells us rather than fearing the Adam.
And we've probably also got to be more ready to forgive unfaithfulness if it happens.
nathan and amy vs al, ben and I.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if age has anything to do with the way we're arguing?
thoughts?
no idea. I'm 37. Does that make me older, wiser and more aware of my own sinfulness than Nathan who is ?
ReplyDeleteNathan is mid 20s. I think Amy is too - but I could be wrong. I'm 34. Ben's in his 30s I think.
ReplyDeletePersonality type?
ReplyDeleteUpbringing?
I suspect the former actually. That good ol' Brigg's Meyer Test again. From what I remember of my results, principle is everything.
Our 'achille's heel' for sin is probably very different from each other. I might be strong in this but very vulnerable in that.
26 for the record though, but I like to think that nearly a decade of coupledom and 5 of marriage might make me not quite a spring chicken.
Great post though - really thought provoking and challenging.
ReplyDeleteTo answer my own question. No it doesn't. Emphatically no. I apologise if that sounded bad Nathan.
ReplyDeleteAs the old man on the block. I am still a long way off understanding my own sinfulness.
And another thought:
ReplyDeleteIs perhaps the enemy using our fear of 'doing the wrong thing' to destroy something that is God-intended good, a blessing to many?
I know that putting stuff down to age seems really condescending, but I don't mean it to be. I'd have argued with you in the past and a very big part of me wants to now.
ReplyDeleteBut adultery happens - and between people you'd never think it would. The gentle slope is a dangerous thing.
Amy. Friendship is a wonderful thing and we should do all we can to develop them. For most of us, same sex friendships are something that we can and should throw ourselves into unreservedly.
ReplyDeleteSimone, I'm not sure if you want to argue with me here. This has become an epic and I've forgotten where we started. A bit like your choose your own adventure story.
ReplyDeleteBut you said For most of us, same sex friendships are something that we can and should throw ourselves into unreservedly.
I agree with that totally.
Lets explore this issue a little further using the analogy of alcohol.
ReplyDeleteSome people are more likely to struggle with particular issues than others.
Not all drinkers become alcoholics.
It seems that there are some people within Christianity who won't go near a pub for fear that they might be alcoholics who can't control their urges.
Other Christians will go to pubs but not drink.
Others will drink...
It goes on.
To the pure all things, including friends with members of the opposite sex, are pure.
I think the issue is one of perception first, then reality. If we were more willing to trust each other to act wisely and less inclined to assume sin on behalf of others we'd probably see less sin happening.
It seems to me to be a bit like staring at a defender when you're running the ball - you're going to end up running into the defender or being smashed by another one... to mix metaphors...
Simone,
ReplyDeleteI'm curious. Are you suggesting that the rise in homosexuality will necessitate the changing of the way we conduct friendships? Or were you using this potentially perilous minefield to highlight how silly some of our attitudes to opposite gender relationships have become?
I read it as the former.
I don't think it's going to be an issue in the new creation, I think it's our sin that makes it an issue now - why are we so culturally wired to flee not the immorality but the potential for potential immorality?
Why aren't we hermits?
I keep thinking "I should have said..." after I've posted.
ReplyDeleteI should have said - I'm not against the idea of being cautious with regards to relationships with the opposite sex - but I do think we've taken our caution to an unhelpful extreme already. I don't think we need to wait until same sex friendships become questionable to think that we've gone too far...
I've been reading this thread for a while. Checking in regularly to see the next round of comments. But not sure how to express thoughts - still.
ReplyDeleteOn the plus side - Simone, feel the blog love. Your stats are going up :)
I recently did a few years working with uni students. I had a number of conversations about healthy same sex relationships. Mostly just highlighting a possibility for people to be aware of.
These conversations were a result of me seeing some super close relationships become destructive, and of a coworker's experience of some friends falling into homosexual acts that way.
Hey, just caught up on the comments since my last one. Just my oppinion on the age thing you brought up Simone--
ReplyDeleteI reckon the disagreements here are more to do with personality type. For example, to compare myself with what I know of my pal Nathan, he is younger, but also definitly has his head screwed on and says wise things I'd never think of. (But don't get a big head, kid) But he also seems a lot more optimistic than me, and doesn't seem to let things get him down too much (from what I've seen), whereas, I am Mr Pessimistic Melancholy Head who gets super troubled by the most minute thing. I reckon maybe our stances of caution v. just trust God reflect our personalities more than our age.
One big thing though about me now, at 32 compared to me, say at 25 is that I have come to see in that time the real fragility of marriage and the need to constantly be protecting it. At 25 I had a 'oh, we are Christians, therefor we'll be married forever, no problem', but in the following years saw sooo many close Christian friends seperate, divorce or fall away from God. This has been majorly sobering, and has made me more cautious at 32 than I was at 25.
Here endeth my novel.
Well, I'm pitching way out of my theological league, not to mention wisdom-coming-from-years-of-experience league, here, but...
ReplyDeleteEveryone seems to be talking about Trinitarian theology at the moment and what that means for the church and relationships. Perhaps it's all got something to do with having close relationships in community? I know it sounds very un-close (not to mention cliche) when it's put like that, but even in our personal relationship with God we are having a relationship with the Three-in-One. It's intimate, it's deep and it's wonderful. The Father glorifies the Son, the Holy Spirit shows us the Son, the Son brings us to and glorifies the Father, the Son sends us the Spirit. It reminds me of something I read in C.S. Lewis about how when one of his friends died, he did not feel as if he had only lost that friend, but the ability to appreciate that friend with others.
Perhaps we've lost the capacity to have deep relationships with more than one person at a time - and so have lost the beauty of friendships in context of God and others? While I'm not saying we can (much less should) have wonderfully deep relationships with everyone, maybe we mistake exclusivity for intimacy?
...of course, in romantic relationships, exclusivity and intimacy are intertwined...but in nonromantic relationships perhaps the key to keeping them unromantic is to remove the exclusivity...
ReplyDeleteHi guys. To wrap up my thoughts:
ReplyDeleteNathan asked "Are you suggesting that the rise in homosexuality will necessitate the changing of the way we conduct friendships?"
My fear is that the rise in homosexuality may make previously less complicated relationships more complicated and many people will have to be cautious in their interactions with not just 50% of people, but with everyone.
This will make the world a worse place.
On the male-female friendships thing, I don't think that it's primarily about whether we have optimistic or pessimistic personalities, but whether the things that we've seen and experienced ourselves make us optimistic or pessimistic in this area. Right now, I'm pretty pessimistic. Most of us won't be able to maintain a close cross gender friendship in the same way we can maintain a same sex friendship without complications arising.
The homosexual thing has been raised for me largely through watching Torchwood (which is fantastic, apart from the gayness). In Torchwood, homosexuality is normalised to the point where any two people on the show may hook up. There are no safe, non-sexual relationships - and everyone is horribly lonely (but maybe this is because they spend their lives secretly fighting aliens...)
Nathan asked : "why are we so culturally wired to flee not the immorality but the potential for potential immorality?" Once you're on a road, it's hard to get off. For many, there is wisdom in not taking the first step onto a road that could lead to immorality. The first step is the easiest one not to take. I'm pleased that this seems like over-kill for you, Nathan.
Final thoughts?
Anika - exclusivity vs intimacy is an interesting thought. Will think on it.
ReplyDeleteBen - I'm an optimist in life. Pessimist right now in this matter
Milika - Feeling the love. That sucks and is what I'm talking about.
Nathan - to keep the alcohol analogy going... If someone who doesn't have an alcohol problem has a drink, that's fine. What if they have 10 drinks, then the next night they have 10 and the next night and the next... Pretty soon, that person who didn't have a problem might find that they do have a problem.
I was coming back to make the same point Anika has already made. Friendships with girls in group contexts are much easier, and more transparent.
ReplyDeleteI've taken more a philosophical line in this discussion that doesn't really match the line I practically adhere to.
While I'd like to be able to enjoy close friendships with females I don't think I'd ever want them to be exclusively close.
And I don't think I've ever met a girl I'd like to be "exclusively close friends" with without it being more than that.
I think there are enough differences between genders that I'd much rather hang out with guys anyway for "exclusive" type relationships other than marriage.
I find our approach to this issue interesting though, and slightly inconsistent. While the victims of the sin of infidelity experience significant hurt - the victims of drunkenness are similarly hurt, and I don't think we apply the same standards to our relationship with alcohol as we do to our relationship with members of the opposite sex. We don't see people with a glass of wine and assume they're a chronic drunk.
So in closing, I think there's a twofold problem here - the problem that we assume others are going to act sinfully and turn perception into reality, and the problem of our own sins and temptations. They're intertwined.
While I don't think I will ever take a girl other than my wife/family out for coffee - I don't think it's wrong to do so in particular circumstances (like to help a new colleague find their feet).
I think I'm more a "to the pure all things are pure" type than an assume a Christian will always sin given the opportunity to do so.
"There is wisdom in not taking the first step onto a road that could lead to immorality."
Yes. But all roads lead to immorality. Even taking no roads ever can be immoral. I'd say there's wisdom in identifying areas where you're likely to struggle with temptation and deal with them appropriately. But to have a blanket cultural norm because some people have particular areas of sinfulness seems to punish everybody for the sins of the few. Gender doesn't seem to be such an issue in the new creation though...
"I think I'm more a "to the pure all things are pure" type than an assume a Christian will always sin given the opportunity to do so."
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm not suggesting that all Christians are immediately pure.
I'm suggesting we should, with discernment, give our brethren the benefit of the doubt (without turning a blind eye).
"I'm suggesting we should, with discernment, give our brethren the benefit of the doubt (without turning a blind eye)."
ReplyDeleteAgree absolutely.
Yeah, I don't think we're actually disagreeing.
ReplyDeleteI think what we should be doing is framing this issue as a positive rather than a negative.
I'd love to be showing so much love to my brothers in Christ that stupid people asked whether I was gay or not. People are now starting to question if Jesus was gay. That people would ask the question can't be an altogether bad thing if there's no substance to it.
I would say "Close relationships are a good thing and should be pursued as a means for encouragement and edification. But because of the fall those relationships will sometimes stray into sin, which will in turn cause our sinful hearts to perceive the actions of others as sinful when we shouldn't, and sometimes when we should."
I'm not sure whether it's pessimism that makes us cautious, or whether it's realistic caution. In 1 Corinthians 10, after referring to a number of ways in which Israel sinned (including, but not only, sexual immorality), Paul says that these were written down as warnings for us, and in verse 12, "Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall". And Paul goes on to say that the temptations that overtake us are "common to man", so I'm not sure to what extent we can say that only some people are affected.
ReplyDeleteI haven't had a chance to have a good think about this, but I do think that some precautions in our dealings with the other sex are helpful (without necessarily making a big show of it, as if sexual sin is the only one to be avoided) and I don't think that for most of us, there is the same need to be cautious with our own sex, at the moment anyway, though I am sure that it could happen.
I'm exhausted. Thanks for soldiering on with this though Simone. It's been interesting.
ReplyDeleteThere are so many responses I want to make to many comments but there are so many and it's all too complicated!
ReplyDeleteThese are the ones I remember:
- Torchwood I don't think should be used as any sort of 'mine canary' to changing attitudes - that show I believes pushes sex (of all sorts) for no other reason than 'sex sells'.
- There is always wisdom in being cautious with any relationship and making sure you do nothing that would make your spouse uncomfortable. If you are feeling the need to be secretive about it, probably you shouldn't do it.
I find this really interesting, being in a position where most of my friends are male, getting on better with males, and working in a very male-dominated industry (most places I have worked I have been the only female). I find it is female relationships that will lead me to sin - in terms of jealousy/competition etc.
Have been reading along and decided finally to comment.
ReplyDeleteA recent example of 'perceptions' of relationships...
People I work with think it entirely appropriate and normal that they go out together to strip clubs ... but when a few of us (three male work colleagues) went overnight hiking and camping for a long weekend, the 'brokeback' jokes were flying thick and fast around work for a couple of days.
Sure people were really only joking ... but still ... sad that that perception could be there at all.
that's yuck.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSorry, I failed to subscribe to comments on this post, and had forgotten about it. Lots to catch up on :)
ReplyDeleteI'll give some thoughts on repentance soon, but a quick one for Amy:
I haven't watched any Torchwood, yet. Is there pedophilia or bestiality or rape? Just thinking about the role of popular culture in 'normalizing' various sins (not just sexual sins). Some things are culturally taboo, so they don't end up looking normal in popular TV shows. So while one TV show doth not a culture make, TV can be used as a moral barometer of sorts. What is 'normal' in TV land is 'normal' for at least part of the culture (and can pull other people's opinions that way). But you're unlikely to find what's taboo being portrayed as 'normal'.
(Incidentally, I'm struggling to think of an unappealing gay character in film or TV in the last decade or so. I don't mean 'unappealing BECAUSE gay' — one of the most appalling things about the Christian subculture to me is the fear/lack of love of gay people. Yes, there are exceptions, but you know, as an outsider coming in, you notice it. Anyway, I just mean 'a character who happens to be gay and happens also to be a baddy'. Can you think of any?)
Mr Snuffle's comment resonates for me: I became Christian when I was at uni, and most of my friends were women. Friendships didn't seem to be tainted with the fear of being inappropriate. One of the hardest cultural adjustments was the weirdness of male-female relations in the Christian subculture.
ReplyDeleteAs for fostering friendships in churches, as with all ethical things, I think there are three things: heart (why we do stuff), head (knowing what we should do), and structures (how we do it). (To see me rambling at length on this, see the series here: http://leslumieres-au.blogspot.com/2009/09/in-praise-of-structures-part-1.html) There's obviously more to say, but here are some initial thoughts.
Heart
1. People need to believe that friendships are good things, and be willing to invest in them. People may fail to believe this because of the high view of romantic relationships in our culture. (And in the Christian subculture, this is fuelled by endless rumours, and the perception that somehow you've 'made it' if you're married.)
2. People need to make (and end) relationships for the sake of Jesus. There is a limited number of people we can love deeply. One of the problems we have is that lots of young evangelicals have been to four different churches in the last five years, and have cherry-picked a number of people they like at each one. Now they really want to keep up with their 200 closest Facebook friends, which means they remain shallowly involved in the lives of a large number of people, rather than deeply involved in the lives of a few people. They don't have time to make good relationships in their current church, let alone look after new people or social outsiders, let alone want to love my non-Christian neighbour more than their third-tier Facebook friend.
Head
ReplyDelete1. We seem to build relationships through task and over time. So we should find tasks to do with people. And we need to give them time. So, for example, churches which break up their small-group Bible studies every 12 months don't give people the time they need to build good friendships.
2. There seems to be a snowballing effect: the more I know someone, and the more I have opportunities to show that I love them, the easier it becomes for us to trust one another and do good to one another. This will include a willingness to be open about sin and to apply the gospel to one anothers' lives.
3. We need to get rid of the single/couple/family divides. (See Tim Adeney's Briefing post for some ideas. Search for the section entitled "The church and singles" http://matthiasmedia.com.au/briefing/library/5571/)
4. Too often we think of church as an event to attend, rather than a community to belong to. People "go to" church, they don't think of themselves as "being church". And our events don't tend to foster good relationships. (e.g. Sunday evening is a big room with hundreds of people and very little conversation; something is 'done to us' collectively, but we don't collectively 'do' much. There are too many people for me to get to know, so I just form a clique. Meanwhile, Bible study on Tuesday evening is an adult tutorial, not a place where we develop trust and intimacy.)
Structures
1. So we need better structures. I'm not saying this a cure-all or that it'll work everywhere, but it seems to work pretty well in the church I'm in at the moment. It's broken into groups (gospel communities) of about 20 people. We're committed to one another indefinitely. We see one another socially a lot. We meet one another's non-Christian friends, family, colleagues, and so on. We love them, too, and become friends with them. We do formal mission together (in the shape of a conversation class for refugees and asylum-seekers). Obviously in order to say "yes" to these relationships, it means saying "no" to others. (So sorry, friends from my previous church whom I haven't seen for 18 months — I probably won't pursue a dinner date with you. It hurts, but I'll catch you in the new creation.)
2. We need to cut other programmes out of our church which don't promote relationships for discipleship and mission. Lots of us in churches are so busy maintaining all the structures and attending all the events that we don't have time for actual relationships. We need simplicity.
3. We might want to promote the practice of having lodgers, which will help us to think of as family people who aren't in our biological family.