Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Evangelical
When Harry Met Sally at Church: Can Christian Men and Women Be Friends?

When Harry Met Sally at Church: Can Christian Men and Women Be Friends?

Last updated on: July 22, 2020 at 5:00 am by Andrea L. Turpin

When Harry Met Sally at Church: Can Christian Men and Women Be Friends? 2020-07-22T01:17:57-04:00 Andrea L. Turpin

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

In the classic romantic comedy When Harry Met Sally, Harry famously asserted, “Men and women can’t be friends because the sex part always gets in the way.” The popularity of the “Billy Graham rule”—that a married man should never be alone with a woman who is not his wife—would seem to indicate that many Christians today agree.

This summer I’ve enjoyed participating in a discussion group on male-female friendships in the American church that challenged that proposition. Fellow participants all work at Baylor, but range across various departments and student life. All identify as broadly evangelical, but worship in different types of churches. And all agree that these friendships are both essential and culturally fraught. We wanted to think through the challenges and how we can encourage better mixed-sex friendships in the church.

The group also made my historian heart happy: someone from another field proposed we center the conversation on Cassandra Good’s book Founding Friendships: Friendships Between Men and Women in the Early American Republic. Examining what mixed-sex friendships looked like in a past culture casts into sharper relief the strengths and weaknesses of our present culture.

Conversation produced a wealth of theological, cultural, and practical reflection. I therefore asked a couple participants to share some brief written reflections. Their thoughts reflect their different disciplinary approaches and the different church environments they have inhabited. I’ve included my own thoughts at the end.

Ian Gravagne, Electrical and Computer Engineering (Ian noted that this might be his first time writing something without an equation in it!):

Christians who openly nurture meaningful opposite-gender friendships will not get far before the whispering starts: You’re playing with fire. He thinks he can tip-toe right up to line without crossing it? Those two are one step from becoming lovers. This can only go two ways: family or fornication! The list goes on, and the message is clear: befriending the opposite sex is too… risky.

Founding Friendships examines the idea of risk throughout, noting that the friends often bore risks (e.g. to reputations through gossip) that were substantially elevated compared with today. Some potential risks have not diminished with time; for example, Good examines the risk of misunderstandings about the emotional character of the friendship. But what exactly is risk in this context?

Risk, properly stated, always consists of two parts: a probability of an undesirable outcome and a cost associated with that outcome. In many fields, risk is stated with numerical precision, for example, “There is a 1% chance of a flood causing $100m worth of damage each year.” Sometimes the cost is implied, such as, “There is a 1-in-5 chance of developing breast cancer in your remaining lifetime.” (The potential costs of cancer being understood to include money, suffering, and possibly death.) The whispered critiques above are essentially statements of risk, and because the implied costs are moral in nature church leaders often espouse rules that they believe will nullify the probability part of the risk equation.

Image courtesy of Pexels

Overlooked in their well-meaning but short-sighted guidance, however, are three essential facts about risk: First, there is no such thing as zero risk in any meaningful human activity. In fact, we accept risk in virtually everything we do. If you drive a car, you have accepted some risks with potentially large costs, including death. Human beings were created to be in relationship with each other and with our Creator. Where there are relationships, there is more risk. Jesus engaged in close relationships with women, accepting many of the same risks as the friends in Founding Friendships. Why? Because, second, we accept risk in order to obtain something valuable! Rationally, the men and women in Founding Friendships would not have carried on but for the value they found in friendship, including intellectual fulfillment, companionship, services (especially for women), and others Good examines in wonderful detail. Third – a point that cannot be overstated and warrants an essay all its own – reducing the cost of a particular risk often simply displaces that cost to another place, person or group. (Could it be that relational risk aversion is partly behind the growing loneliness epidemic in America?)

Good suggests that we suffer both a deficiency of language and of imagination in building caring and close friendships across gender lines. I agree, and submit that our Christian tradition and theological framework offers a third way, a path forward for opposite-gender friendship to grow neither toward family (necessarily) or fornication but toward spiritual union – a kind of love that defies easy categorization but can be deep, abiding and fulfilling. In part, I think this is what scripture suggests with language about “brothers and sisters”. If we have been set free from the bondage of sin, are we free to trust and affirm one another instead of viewing the other as a risk? Are we free to invite the Holy Spirit to be an ever-present third person in the relationship, helping to work through misunderstandings and avoid temptations? Can we see our friends as God sees them – not as calculated risks, but as eternal, created beings with value that transcends gender or appearance? (Are we free to even talk about these ideas in typical church culture?) These are complex questions, but many of the founding friends answered them with a resounding YES – over 200 years ago!

Lori Kanitz, Institute for Faith and Learning (Check out Lori’s new book on the theology of Annie Dillard!):

I bought a chest freezer this past weekend. I did so because my friend—I’ll call him Richard—who is a self-defined “prepper” has been dogging me lately to prepare better for the unknown pandemic terrain. Richard and I met in eighth grade art class when one day he snuck his monster drawings down the row to me. That was over forty years ago. He has been happily married for years and has a family now. I married my work. Yet Richard remains my friend and for the same reasons we became friends at thirteen. He’s simply one of the most interesting, funny, and kind people I know. I have learned a lot from him.

I imagine (and hope) many people have similar stories of enduring and significant heterosocial friendships—fulfilling, formative friendships with a person of the opposite gender with whom one is not romantically involved. Yet heterosocial friendship is hard to find and even harder to defend in a culture, particularly Christian culture, that assumes men and women who share a deep connection will inevitably stray into forbidden territory either emotionally or sexually. To insist otherwise is thought to be naïve or disingenuous. “We’re just friends.” Sure, you are.

Image courtesy of Pexels

As Cassandra Good points out in Founding Friendships, unfortunately this leaves us with neither the imaginations nor the nuanced vocabulary needed to describe and create the sorts of friendships that are extraordinarily important to human well-being, particularly in times of crisis or profound change. In the early Republic when old social systems (e. g. monarchy, aristocracy) simply no longer existed, friendships between educated men and women became crucial to forming a new social order: they “expanded an individual’s networks beyond marriage and family, offering new sources of affection, intellectual exchange, and practical assistance” (6).

Interestingly, these sentiments appear nearly verbatim in Mandy Len Catron’s July 18 article in The Atlantic, “There is So Much More Than the Nuclear Family, Even Now,” as she reflects on friendships not in the early Republic but in the current pandemic. Americans have idealized the nuclear family, despite data that shows only about twenty percent of us actually live in one. Crisis exposes the fragility of that structure and the vulnerability of those outside it, but also creates opportunities for new social infrastructures that we might previously have avoided or decried. Suddenly the old rules defining hospitality, family, neighbor, and, yes, friendships, get suspended in the acuteness of immediate need.

This may be friendship’s moment. At least I hope so. Despite the daily horrors of the pandemic, it is creating new categories, or perhaps resurrecting forgotten ones, for all the beautiful, creative, and multi-faceted ways we can love and care for others. As a university educator I have long wished for a new lexicon to name the infinite ways my students can enjoy friends of the opposite gender without marrying them or hooking up with them. I long for the same among my Christian brothers and sisters. How much richer would our lives in Christ be if we could learn to give and receive the gift of heterosocial friendship wisely but without fear and censure? What if we all had a “Richard” or two more in our lives? In my experience, they would be infinitely richer.

Andrea Turpin, History:

In one chapter, Good analyzes three pairs of “Founding Friendships”: Abigail Adams and Thomas Jefferson—who need no introduction—schoolteacher Eloise Payne and minister William Ellery Channing, and schoolmistress Mary Pierce and lawyer Charles Loring. (The friendships Good analyses tend to be among relatively well-off white women and men because they are the ones who most often left behind extensive personal correspondence.)

What struck me about these friendships is that they were essentially egalitarian within a hierarchical world. Women were legally and culturally subservient to their husbands in the early American republic, women could not vote or hold political office, and women did not have access to the same educational and vocational opportunities as men. Yet both men and women sought out friendships in which they could relate as equals. The fact that both parties could opt in or out at will made this dynamic possible.

Image courtesy of Pexels

Good highlighted something else I think particularly relevant to healthy friendships in the church today: the mixed-sex friendships that worked best tended to be between people not pigeon-holed into extreme gender roles. Male and female friends valued the different perspective they each brought to the table because of their gender, but they also valued each other as individuals and had enough common traits and experiences on which to base their connection. Here is Good:

What was it that made these close friendships with the opposite sex work?….[T]here are several common characteristics of these pairs that may apply in varying degrees to other pairs of friends. Perhaps most notably, Thomas, William, and Charles were all described by people who knew them as somewhat feminine. In the context of the time, this did not refer to sexual proclivities, but to a softness of demeanor, empathy, and an ability to connect with women…..[F]eminine qualities did not necessarily detract from manhood. The women, in turn, all had unusually sharp intellects that perhaps went beyond the intelligence thought becoming to a republican woman.

These particular men and women, and perhaps others who became friends, pushed at the edges of standard manhood and womanhood in ways that were ultimately compatible. A woman with a “mannish” intellect and a man with a “feminine” demeanor could be a natural fit as friends. All three of these pairs of friends shared common interests, whether in children, politics, education, religion, or even the outcome of a romantic relationship [with someone else]. In some ways, these men and women were much more alike than different: intelligent, frank, strong-willed, and in need of friendship. Mutuality, reciprocity, and emotional connection overcame gender difference (36).

Bringing these insights into today’s church, it would seem that the benefits of male-female friendships are easier to experience in church cultures that do not rigidly segregate men and women or rigidly stereotype their respective characteristics. Indeed, anecdotally in our discussion group, such friendships were more common and accepted in church cultures where the sexes aren’t as culturally segregated (mostly my experience) than in contexts where they are (the experience of some others in the group).

And what are the benefits of mixed-sex friendships? Men and women bring different experiences to the table. One of the implications of God making us male and female is that by definition no one person can have the complete human experience. We are forced into community. But a spouse cannot carry all the weight of providing the opposite sex’s perspective. We are not only male and female; we are also individuals. And many of us are single. The marriage bond is special and sacred, but church communities flourish more when women and men warmly cooperate in other ways as well.

PS: I have not read it yet, but evangelical theologian Aimee Byrd wrote what looks to be a good book advocating for mixed-sex friendships in the modern church. This summer, Aimee became the target of disdain from an online community of men in her denomination for challenging the rigid subcultures of men and women within it, even though she holds to her denomination’s theology of gender difference. Her experience adds evidence for the proposition that male-female friendships flourish better in church cultures that value women’s and men’s different perspectives without forcing them into narrowly defined subcultures.

Male-Female Friendship

Marriage

singleness

Previous Post

July 21, 2020

How to Hide an Empire

Next Post

July 23, 2020 Os Guinness, Eric Metaxas, and Their Dangerous Myths of American History

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category abolitionism Abortion Abraham Joshua Heschel Abraham Kuyper Abraham Lincoln Academia Activism Adam Renberg Advent Adventist africa African American Religion Agnes Howard Albert Camus American History American Religious History American Revolution American West Anabaptists Ancient History Andrea Turpin Andrei Tarkovsky Anglicanism Annales Ansley Lillian Quiros anti-Catholicism Antisemitism Anxious Bench apologetics Apparitions Arash Azizi Archaeology archives art Artificial Intelligence Asia Asian Americans Augustine Authors Bad Bunny Baptism Baptists Barack Obama Battle of Hastings Benjamin Franklin Bernard-Henri Levy Beth Allison Barr Beth Moore Bethany Mannon Bible Bill Cunningham Billy Graham Black Music Bob Dylan Body Boenhoffer Books Breastfeeding Bruce Springsteen C.S. Lewis Calvinism Cancel Culture Capitalism Carmelites Catholicism Cedric Robinson Cesar Chavez Charismaticism charity Charles Dickens Charles Lindbergh Che Guevara Chicago Children Chinese Christianity Chris Gehrz Christ Christian death Christian Higher Education Christian life Christian Nation Christian Nationalism Christianity Today Christmas Church life Church Practice cinema Civil Religion Civil Rights Movement Civil War civility Classics Climate Change Cold War Colonial Mexico colonialism Comer Communism community complementarianism Conference on Faith and History Congregationalism Conspiracies Conspiracy Conversion Narratives Coronavirus Costa Rica Council of Nicaea Covid-19 Creation Critical Race Theory Crusades Culture culture wars Daniel K. Williams David Barton David Swartz Death Ways death with dignity DEI democracy Democratic Party Devotion Digital Age Diplomacy discipleship diversity Donald Trump Drama Dua Lipa Early Church early modern Early modern Catholicism Easter Eastern Christianity economic exploitation Education elections Elie Wiesel Elizabeth II Elizabeth Taylor emotions Empire Engineering England enslavement Entertainment Episcopal Church Erica Ramirez eschatology Eurocentrism Evangelicalism Evangelicals Exegesis Family Feminism Film Flannery O'Connor folk music Food Foreign Policy founding fathers Franciscans Franciscus Junius fundamentalism Funerals G.K. Chesterton Gender Genocide genre geography George W. Bush George Washington George Whitefield Global Christianity Global church Grief Guadalupe Guest Post guest post gun control gun violence Gustavo Gutierrez Hamid Dabashi Harold John Ockenga Harvest Hate Hawaiian Christianity Healing health care Heather Cox Richardson Hell Heresy Hermeneutics Higher Education Hinduism Hippocratic oath Historical Fiction Historical Methodology Historical Profession Historical Profession Historical Theology Historical Thinking historiography Holidays Holocaust horror movies Human rights Humanitarian Work humanities Hummingbirds Hungary hymns Imago Dei Immigration Injustice Interviews Iran Islam Islamophobia Israel Ivan's Childhood Jacob Randolph James Bratt Janine Giordano Drake Japanese history Japanese Literature Jean Paul Sartre Jesse Miranda Jesus Jesus Christ Jimmy Carter Joan Baez Joan Didion Joanne Freeman João B. Chaves Joao Chaves Joey Cochran John Calvin John Fea John Tillotson John Turner Johnny Cash Jonathan Edwards Jonathan Tran Joseph Smith Josh Howerton Journalism Jr. Judaism Jürgen Moltmann Just War Justice Justin Brierley Karl Barth Katelyn Beaty koi ponds Kris Kristofferson Kristin Kobes Du Mez Latin American Religious History Latino Americans Lectio Divina Leisure Lent Leonard Cohen liberal arts liberalism Liberation Theology Linda Ronstadt Lisa Clark Diller Literature Lou Reed Lynchings Lynneth Miller Renberg Mainline Protestantism Malcolm Foley Marilyn Monroe Maritime history Mark Noll Marriage Martin Luther Martin Luther King Martyrdom Marxism Mary Masih Alinejad mass shootings material culture medieval Christianity Medieval Ethiopia Melissa Borja memory Mennonites Mental Health Mental Illness Methodism Mexican Americans Mexicans Mike Madrid Miles Mullin Min Jin Lee Miscarriage Missionaries Mister Rogers Mitt Romney modernity Monasticism Mormonism Motherhood Mothers of the Church Moving Music Musicals Nadya Williams Nahua Christianity Native Americans Natsume Sōseki New Contributor New England New Year New York Nico Non-Violent Protest Orthodoxy pacifism Paleo Evangelicals Palestinians Parenting Patti Smith Paul Kingsnorth Pedro Calderón de la Barca Pentecostalism Philip Jenkins Phillis Wheatley physician-assisted suicide pilgrimage Pilgrims pluralism Plutocracy Poetry Politics Pope Francis Pope Leo XIV post-modernism prayer preaching Presbyterians prosperity gospel Protest Public history Publishing Puritans purity culture Quakers race Race Massacres Racial Capitalism racial reconciliation racialization Racism Raha Bahloulipour Re-Enchantment reading Reformation Refugees religion and the university religion and war Religious Freedom Religious Nones Religious Pluralism Religious Symbols religious violence Republican Party Revival Rita Coolidge Ritual Roger Williams Roman Catholic church Royalty Russell Moore same-sex marriage Sarah Irving-Stonebraker Scandinavia Science Science and Technology Scopes trial Scriptural Interpretation secularism Selena Quintanilla seminary Seventh-Day Adventists sexual morality Sexuality Sikhs Silence slaveholders theology Slavery Slavoj Zizek social justice Social Media Southern Baptist Convention Southern Religion Spain Spiritual Autobiography Spiritual but not religious Spiritual Discipline Sports Stanley Hauerwas Suffering Summer Camps Sunday Night Odds and Ends Supernatural Supreme Court Syriac Christianity Tal Howard Taylor Swift Teaching Technology Television Thanksgiving The Beatles The Mission theater TheoBros Theology Thomas Dixon Thomas Jefferson Thomas Kidd Thomas Merton Tim Gloege Tim Walz Tom Holland Tourism tradition Tragedy Translation Transnationalism Travel Trump Ukraine Uncategorized Unitarians United Methodist Church US History Vanessa Chan Velvet Underground Verónica A. Gutiérrez Veronica Gutierrez Vikings Violence Virgin Mary Virtue Virtue ethics Visions Voting War WCTU Wendell Berry Westminster Assembly White Evangelicalism Wildfires Winnie the Pooh Witches women Women in Ministry Women's and Gender Studies Work Worship writing Yasunari Kawabata Zena Hitz

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who was the first woman?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Mary Eve Deborah Sarah