‘But I call you friends’: Patristic insights for an orthodox missiology of friendship

Introduction

In response to the prevalent colonial and business-like models of mission, Roman Catholic and Protestant, Western and non-Western, theologians have freshly proposed ‘friendship’ as a missiological paradigm. They attested in many ways that the Christian message of salvation is best delivered and lived through profound Christ-like networks of friendships. These friendships are considered subversive hope in a deeply polarized, angered, oppressed, impoverished, and disappointed world. In this paper, I explore the possibility of Orthodox theology, which is predominantly Eastern, to substantiate this model. From a patristic perspective, I study how the Orthodox understanding of friendship supports and broadens this missiological paradigm. The Patristic insights, valued across various Christian traditions, provide a basis for building ecumenical bridges. However, it is crucial not to apply modern conceptions of mission anachronistically to the Patristic era. Instead, we must approach their views within their historical context and adapt them to address contemporary challenges.

While the topic of friendship in Patristic thought is not new, this paper aims to contribute to the field of missiology by incorporating these insights into mission theology, offering a fresh perspective on how the ancient Christian understanding of friendship can inform modern missional practice. The article is divided into four parts: 1) By way of introduction, I present the missiological problem, and I look at the works of some Roman Catholic and Protestant theologians to highlight the main features of the proposed paradigm. 2) I then explore some ancient philosophical views on friendship that may have influenced early Eastern Christian thought. I look at how important schools of philosophy, such as the Platonic, Aristotelian, and Stoic, have understood ‘friendship.’ 3) The core of this investigation is an exploration of friendship within the Patristic tradition, with particular attention to the writings of Clement of Alexandria, Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom, as well as the broader monastic tradition. 4) Finally, the paper offers a synthesis of an Orthodox Patristic missional paradigm of friendship.

Missiological problem

Christians have employed diverse models to spread, implant, and revive the Gospel message among people, some of these models have been Christ-like and others not. A missiological model involves both ethos (the way we do mission) and telos (the goal we aim for). Ignoring either can lead to a misguided or ineffective mission, which may explain the failure of past or current models. When proposing a missional approach, we must be mindful of both aspects. Failing to do so risks using wrong methods or practicing aimless efforts. A well-rounded model ensures that the mission is carried out rightly; with a clear purpose and proper means, fulfilling God's calling. In every era, the Church must discern the signs of the times, ensuring that its mission reflects God's mission and aligns with the economy of salvation. It is the Church community's responsibility to listen to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, refine its practices, and clarify its goals to reflect Christ's model, flourishing in its calling while remaining faithful to the Gospel in every age and context.

Looking critically at the widespread current paradigms we can detect two main deficiencies which threaten the authenticity of Christian witness. First, strong remanence of colonial heritage. Second, business-oriented mentality and practice. Numerous scholars have criticized the ‘standard’ missionary work in the past 500 years to be serving imperialist and colonial agendas, blending missions with European power. From a post-colonial perspective, their main critique lies in how Christian missions supported and benefited from colonialism. Even in a post-colonial era, missions are still adopting a neocolonial attitude. Added to this issue is the business-like approach following a capitalistic and neoliberal mentality transforming mission from a way of life to an industrial structure. This combined paradigm is evident in many situations. For example, when opportunities for mission work in poor countries depend entirely on wealthy churches and their financial resources. When missionaries act like colonizers imposing their own terminology and language, disregarding the local understanding. When they view themselves as superior in spiritual, cultural, and financial aspects, dismissing local culture as mere folklore and overlooking local resources as useless. When mission organizations regard people as numbers, not names, a way that encourages using suspicious ways to increase numbers. When mission reports prioritize pleasing the sending churches over honoring local communities. When large corporations, often exploitative, are deeply involved in mission decisions. When a triumphalist attitude prevails, with little acknowledgment of local efforts or past mistakes. When there is no apology for historical wrongs. When the hosting community – the colonized – remains dependent and under paternalistic control. These models exhibit weak contextualization or at best superficial one. They limit trust and creativity. In terms of social engagement, they offer charity from unequal positions, hardly engage in implementing long-lasting justice, and struggle to establish sustainable development projects. The churches emerging from these models a far from being grassroots Christianity.

Re-Introducing friendship

Voices have suggested relational mission approaches as solutions to the growing problems emerging from these dysfunctional models, with one promising approach being the concept of friendship. Theologians, offering friendship as an alternative to current missiological challenges, present diverse perspectives on how this model could address those problems, highlighting its potential for fostering meaningful connections in the face of these challenges. It is worth noting that it is through listening to local communities that theologians began to pay attention to friendship as an alternative. This refreshing proposal can be considered as the voice of the Holy Spirit that works from below, from the people helping the church to be more relevant to their lives. The people said, ‘You have given your goods to feed the poor. You have given your bodies to be burned. We also ask for love. Give us friends.’ ¹ They also complained that ‘The Church has done things for us but has never done things with us.’ ²

Friendship is a universal phenomenon present in every culture and society, yet its understanding and practice vary across different contexts. Social, cultural, political, and theological factors heavily influence how friendship is perceived and formed. Throughout history, friendships have been both a source of mutual support, such as among those who faced martyrdom for Christ and a means of exploitation, like in international human trafficking networks. In the mission world, friendships foster fraternal communities, while colonial and business models also adopt certain forms of friendship. This diversity has led many writers to distinguish between ‘true’ and ‘genuine’ friendships, contrasting them with ‘false’ or ‘fake’ ones, reflecting the complex nature of human relationships.

Within the Roman Catholic Church, the friendship between forty-two bishops present at the Second Vatican Council brought forth a commitment to living in the spirit of Jesus, standing in solidarity with their suffering people. This commitment is known as The Catacombs’ Pact of the Poor and Servant Church (1965). ³ Later, Gustavo Gutierrez emphasized friendship in integral liberation, asserting that without it, socio-political liberation risks becoming oppressive. He writes: ‘If there is no daily friendship with the poor and appreciation of the diversity of their desires and needs as human beings, we can transform the search for justice into a pretext, and even justification, to mistreat the poor, pretending to know better than they what they want and need.’ ⁴ The document of the Episcopal Conference of Latin America CELAM in Aparecida (2007) adopted this language of friendship. It focused on friendship with Jesus and the poor. Friendship with Jesus is cultivated through personal and community prayer, reading the Scriptures, and participating in the Eucharist. ⁵ As for friendship with the poor, the document states that ‘Only the closeness that makes us friends allows us to deeply appreciate the values ​​of today's poor, their legitimate desires and their own way of living the faith. The option for the poor must lead us to friendship with the poor. Day by day, the poor become subjects of evangelization and of integral human promotion.’ ⁶ In 2019, the Pan-Amazon Synod renewed the commitment of the Catacombs’ Pact by introducing the Catacomb's Pact for the Common Home in which the participants committed themselves to ‘Cultivate true friendships with the poor, visit the simplest people and the sick, exercise the ministry of listening, comfort and support that brings encouragement and renew hope.’ ⁷

Josep Rambla speaks of the Art of Friendship through his reading of Ignatius of Loyola. He concludes that for Ignatius, true friendship finds its foundation in God, who integrates nature and grace. Friendship, a gratuitous gift, is nurtured through both natural and spiritual means. Ignatius viewed it as a slow, fragile process, learning its essentials through his companions and deepening these bonds, especially through the Spiritual Exercises. ⁸ ‘In reality, friendship not only illuminates but grounds the experience of many important realities of Christian life, such as prayer, apostolate, personal relationship with Christ, and alliance with God experience in life.’ ⁹ Within the same Ignatian spirituality, Martin Maier offers a Christological view for ‘friendship with the Lord.’ ¹⁰ From John's gospel, Maier notes that Jesus’ call for friendship is conditioned by keeping the commandments. The commandments are summarized in loving one another. This means that ‘the condition of love is love.’ ¹¹ Jesus’ love through the incarnation and his identification with the poor invites us to befriend the poor. Thus, ‘friendship with the poor makes us friends of the eternal king.’ ¹²

Offering a different view, Basil Pennington highlighted the role of ‘the bridegroom's friend,’ referring to John the Baptist (John 3:29). ‘In his friendship, the precursor is also a follower, a disciple, for his Master and ours is preeminently a friend.’ ¹³ He laments that today for many monks because of endless responsibilities, there's often little time for genuine friendship with God or others, but Jesus made space to be alone with his disciples, nurturing deep, present friendships through intentional time together. ¹⁴

From an Anglican perspective, Liz Carmichael presented a comprehensive study on friendship and concluded that friendship as a framework consists of: 1) all love involves relationships, either actual or potential, 2) friendship is the central form of relationship, and 3) the love of friendship has three aspects: ontological (shared being), deontological (goodness in action), and teleological (aimed at mutual joy and fulfillment). ¹⁵ On a social level, she asserts that friendship is a liberating, reciprocal love that fosters mutual fulfillment without possessiveness, shaping relationships. According to Carmichael, ‘friendship cares about truth and justice, and has intensity and stability.’ ¹⁶

Within Protestant circles, Jürgen Moltmann's concept of ‘Open Friendship’ critiques modern exclusivity, where friendships are based on mutual benefit and similarity. In contrast, open friendship, modeled after Jesus, invites connection with others regardless of social status, beliefs, or ethics. He argues that Christian friendship refutes the classical belief that true friendship can only exist between the alike. Moltmann identifies the desire for dominance, self-deception, and lack of autonomy as key barriers to cultivating genuine, inclusive friendships. He emphasizes the need to overcome these obstacles to form authentic bonds that transcend self-interest. ¹⁷

In the same vein of thought, Dana L. Robert promotes ‘global friendship’ arguing that ‘faithful friendship is like the mustard seed of Jesus's parable.’ ¹⁸ She claims that since the time of Jesus and his disciples, friendship has supported the Christian community's witness. It is a biblical practice central to the church's mission, not found in structures or doctrines. Instead, its significance emerges through believers’ stories, reflecting relationships of equality and care across boundaries. Friendship integrates being and doing, uniting believers in Christ, and showing transformative power. ¹⁹ Socially, she asserts that ‘if friendship does not expect transformation, it runs the danger of being selfish, of gaining personal spiritual satisfaction on the backs of the poor.’ ²⁰ Similarly, Brian Edgar in his way to unfold the concept that ‘God is friendship,’ assures that ‘a relationship built upon friendship rather than servanthood can transform life.’ ²¹ Jonathan Bronk contends that friendship's transformative power should be the foundation for repentance from political, economic, military, and ecclesial domination. ²²

Philosophical background

The Church Fathers’ understanding of friendship has been strongly influenced by the philosophical views of their times, most importantly, Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics.

Plato takes an abstract and metaphysical approach in his discussions on friendship. ²³ This is evident in the way he makes Socrates end the dialogue in the Lysis with such a statement, ‘What a “friend” is, we have not yet succeeded in discovering.’ ²⁴ Plato has Socrates articulate the understanding of friendship in a wider cosmological context. Friendship is rooted in communion, as true connection cannot exist without it. Through communion and friendship, the order is established, uniting heaven, earth, gods, and humans in harmonious bonds. This order, built on justice and temperance, defines the world's structure. ²⁵ Plato's idealistic approach does not suggest its impracticality. On the contrary, friendship ‘is a fulfillment of fundamental human needs and desire.’ ²⁶ Only those who are self-sufficient do not need friends. This leads him to affirm the position that friendship is between equals who can trust each other and enrich each other. Equal in this sense does not mean perfectly similar, because if they are similar in every way how can they benefit from each other? This raises paradoxical ideas; how to become friends with someone and not love the benefit over the individual. Here Plato suggests that ‘we must open ourselves up to the divine in order to fully love our friend as an individual person.’ ²⁷

For Aristotle, friendship ‘is not only necessary but also noble … For without friends no one would choose to live, though he had all other goods.’ ²⁸ Aristotle is more realistic in his treatment of friendship. He distinguishes three types of friendship: 1) Friendships of utility, where each person seeks some advantage from the other. 2) Friendships of pleasure, which arise from finding the other person enjoyable. Both dissolve when utility or pleasure ends. 3) The highest form, friendship of the good, is rare and requires time and effort. ²⁹ This enduring friendship exists only between equals – ‘good’ people who wish the best for one another. Aristotle emphasizes that true friends share ‘a single soul.’ ³⁰ While friendship stems from self-love, true friendship cannot be egocentric. It inherently promotes justice, as genuine friends share everything, fostering mutual respect and equality. In contrast, friendship between dissimilar individuals is fraught with risks and is likely to dissolve. This does not mean friendships cannot exist between different people; bonds like those between parent and child, ruler and subject, or host and guest are examples. However, Aristotle argues that such relationships lack the reciprocity, mutuality, and equality required for true friendship. Thus, while they may resemble friendship, they fall short of its essence. ³¹

Stoics’ desired state of apatheia shaped their distinctive views on friendship. Apatheia in Stoicism denotes a state of emotional tranquility and self-control, attained through rational mastery over desires and aversions. It reflects freedom from disturbance by external events, focusing on internal virtue. True friendships are only possible by wise people who have reached that state. ‘This friendship is selfless and knows no boundaries.’ ³² Unlike Classical views, the Stoics believe that true friendship is not based on human need but rather on the pursuit of virtue, with friendship serving no essential role in filling gaps for a perfectly rational person. Although friends can offer benefits to the Stoic wise person, these benefits stem from their mutual dedication to virtuous living. ³³ The Stoic utopia is built on friends who embrace this ideal, becoming ‘citizens of the world’ who make rational decisions and take virtuous actions for the greater good of society.

Clement of Alexandria

Clement of Alexandria is well known for his ability to retrieve from Greco-Roman philosophy and literature what is compatible with Christian revelation. His views on friendship are not an exception. Clement connects hospitality with friendship and brotherly love in this way; ‘Welcome to strangers is concerned with what is best for strangers. Strangers are guests, guests are friends, friends are brothers. “My friend, my brother,” says Homer.’ ³⁴ In saying this, Clement offered a view of Christian agape influenced by Stoic concepts of friendship showing the strong connections between virtues. ³⁵ Clement also adopted a modified version of Aristotle's threefold friendship classification, identifying the highest form as one that is based on virtue. ³⁶ He quickly redefines this affection, associating it with the Christian concept of agape rather than Aristotelian friendship. ³⁷

Although Clement comfortably and eloquently used the terms ‘friend’ or ‘friendship,’ like many early Christian writers, he limitedly used the friendship language in his works. This pattern of avoidance reflects a broader trend in early Christian thought, where the theme of love was more central than friendship. It was only in the fourth century that friendship became a more prominent and significant theme among Christian theologians. ³⁸ Clement's contribution to the Christian concept of friendship can be summarized in three themes: 1) Friendship with God/Christ, 2) befriending God by becoming friends with the poor, and 3) becoming a Church of friends.

Clement often speaks of ‘friendship with God’ and ‘Christ's friends.’ For Clement, friendship with God is evident in the lives of Abraham and Moses as the testimonies of the Scriptures. He argues that this concept has been adopted among the Greeks in the friendship between Minos the king and Zeus for example. ³⁹ Friendship with God is transformative. According to Clement, friendship with the Truth transforms true philosophers (philosopher = lover or friend of wisdom) from slaves to friends. Here, Clement alludes to John 15:15 and John 14:6 where Jesus initiates this transformation and proclaims that he is the Truth. ⁴⁰ Clement applies the common understanding of shared possessions among friends to friendship with the divine. As friends with the divine, humans are ‘entitled’ to access what is in God's possession according to need. ⁴¹ He writes, ‘if what belongs to friends be reckoned common property, and man be the friend of God – for through the mediation of the Word has he been made the friend of God – then accordingly all things become man's, because all things are God's, and the common property of both the friends, God and man.’ ⁴² God's friendship is radically superior to natural friendship. Clement reasons that there is ‘a natural friendship which arises between like-minded people out of familiarity. But God's mercy is shown richly towards us even though we have nothing to do with him.’ ⁴³

According to Clement, the poor provide a way for friendship with God. The poor in Clement's understanding are intercessors for the rich. He advises the wealthy to secure their salvation with a host of ‘orphans dear to God, widows armed with meekness, men, adorned with love.’ ⁴⁴ He also teaches that the rich, like all believers, are called to despise earthly possessions, share them with the needy, and ‘achieve an ascetic self-sufficiency,’ a journey that ultimately leads them to God's friendship, deepening their connection with God and fostering spiritual growth. ⁴⁵ Further, Clement's view of friendship with the poor is grounded in the Logos’ identification with them. He emphasizes a transcendent God who is deeply present with the suffering, thus calling Christians to renew their commitment to follow the Logos, Jesus. He urges believers to form friendships with the poor and marginalized, reflecting Christ's solidarity with them. By walking alongside the overlooked, Christians imitate Christ's love and compassion, drawing closer to God. In embracing the poor as friends, disciples of the Educator embody the true spirit of discipleship and deepen their understanding of God's presence in the world. ⁴⁶

Clement envisages the Christian community as a church of friends. In following Jesus’ example, each church member must practice humility to foster genuine friendships with one another. For Clement, it is a logical consequence of discipleship that all believers become friends, as their ultimate aim is to embody the friendship of Christ, reflecting Christ's love and companionship in their communal relationships. ⁴⁷ He adopts the language of Stoic philosophers regarding the ‘friendship’ of the wise to describe the ecclesial ‘community of life,’ emphasizing the deep relational and communal aspects of Christian fellowship. ⁴⁸ Clement trusts that the church as a community of friends provides a healthy space for the seeker of truth and wisdom to progress in ethical life under the guidance of love. ⁴⁹

Gregory of Nazianzus

Gregory of Nazianzus believed that ‘nothing [is] more venerable than friendship.’ ⁵⁰ Friends are the best thing in life. ⁵¹ Friendship for Gregory is the unity of life. ⁵² Friendship must be practiced despite the busyness of this world's duties. ⁵³ As a Christian, one must show love to everyone, but that does not appear, in Gregory's mind, to be in conflict with the idea of having a few close friends. ⁵⁴

Speaking of his celebrated friendship with Basil of Caesarea he said, ‘We seemed to have one soul, inhabiting two bodies.’ ⁵⁵ Since he is instructed within the Classical schools of his times it is no surprise that he uses the metaphor of soul and body. Yet, for Gregory, this union springs not as a mere human initiative but from the work of the Holy Spirit. Gregory focuses on the role of the Holy Spirit in the genesis and growth of friendships. He acknowledges that friendships can start ‘in the world,’ as a natural relationship that emerges by sharing common interests. ⁵⁶ Nevertheless, according to him, ‘true friendships’ develop only ‘by the presence of the Spirit within’ people. This Spirit is the bond and safeguard of friendship. ⁵⁷ The classical conception that friends share everything, according to Gregory, is deepened, and perhaps even only possible, because of the fellowship and love poured in people's hearts by God's Spirit. ⁵⁸ A true friendship is ‘a spiritual relationship with its foundation in God.’ ⁵⁹ This kind of friendship is ‘more lasting and intimate than the kind of “physical” friendships, motivated by utility or pleasure, which Gregory compares to spring flowers because of their lack of permanence.’ ⁶⁰

‘Gregory's views on friendship were sentimental and emotional.’ ⁶¹ He does not hesitate to express deep emotions of joy, sorrow, and even frustrations that emerge within serious friendships. ⁶² These emotions are not considered signs of weakness but rather signs of authenticity. True friendship entails vulnerability with the accompanying risk. The intensity of those emotions is directly related to the depth of friendship. Perhaps, the high esteem that Gregory had for friendship made him more sensitive to his friends’ actions. Moreover, Gregory does not hide his experiences of doubt and disappointment in friends to the point of uttering striking statements such as ‘Never again, I said, will I put my faith in friendship.’ ⁶³ On other occasions, he regrets trusting mortal creatures. He even blames himself for his naivety and ignorance, and for considering them friends those who would betray him. In so doing, Gregory also recognizes the possibility of having deceitful and false friendships. People who approach ‘under the guise of friendship, but with envious, and not kindly intent.’ ⁶⁴ For example, in De Vita Sua, ‘Gregory opens up and shares his innermost pain and injuries,’ which he suffered from whom he calls ‘fake friends.’ The wounds are more painful when they are caused by close friends. Pain in friendships may also arise from separation not necessarily conflicts. In whatever case, this, however, does not refrain him from admitting the worth of friendship, and ‘[pointing] out the ethical values and the importance of friendship.’ ⁶⁵

For Gregory, friends are expected to encourage each other. ⁶⁶ He recalls how Basil, his dear friend, did not lose hope in him and encouraged him to fulfill his vocation in life. Referring to Luke 11:33, Gregory writes, ‘You refused to let the lamp, by which you mean my light and my mission in life, remain concealed under the bushel for long.’ ⁶⁷ Elsewhere, Gregory was a source of encouragement for Basil when they both took ecclesial responsibilities against their will. They must fulfill their duties in protecting the Church from heretics. ⁶⁸ Even though this meant that they would not be able to meet again soon. This shows how friendship should not become a barrier to the edification of the Church. Quite the contrary, encouragement within friendships is meant to maintain the person in fulfilling God's greater will. That is perhaps what made Gregory believe that love and desire to be in intimate friendship with God is the foundation and prerequisite for true Christian friendship. Otherwise, friendship can become a distraction from God's love. ⁶⁹

Friends must also correct each other and instruct each other in God's way. This same relationship between Gregory and Basil had its low moments. There were times of tension between both in which their ways of seeing things were drastically dissimilar, and they felt compelled to reproach each other. On some occasions, Gregory would accept and even ask Basil to rebuke him. He writes, ‘If I am wrong, do correct me, as you have often done in the past. You refused to prefer our friendship to the Spirit.’ ⁷⁰ On other occasions, the priest Gregory was not intimidated to reproach his old friend, now Bishop Basil. In fact, Gregory adhering to the Classical views that friendship is possible only between equals, pronounced the death of their friendship when Basil accepted this position. Nevertheless, apparently, this was just an emotional assertion. Their friendship did not actually die as attested in the funeral oration that Gregory wrote after Basil's death.

Basil of Caesarea

Basil of Caesarea's view of friendship blended his Christian beliefs with elements from Classical philosophy, giving primacy to the former. Like Aristotle, he saw friendship as a virtue, but for him, it was grounded in shared Christian faith rather than just virtue. ⁷¹ He also regards ‘a friend is another self,’ as a wise saying. ⁷² Like Gregory of Nazianzus, he distinguished between earthly friendships and spiritual friendships. Spiritual friendships, in Basil's view, were hard to develop and held a deeper, more enduring bond. They are only possible by the Holy Spirit and God's grace. ⁷³ In agreement with Gregory, Basil recognizes that among friendship's duty is to correct one another. He says, ‘The chief difference between a friend and a flatterer is this; the flatterer speaks to please, the friend will not leave out even what is disagreeable.’ ⁷⁴ Unlike Gregory, Basil's attitude towards friendship is less emotional and more practical. ⁷⁵

Basil is famous for expanding the concept of friendship into the socio-political arena. Friendship does not affect only the individual, but it touches the ecclesial and communal circles too. For Basil, ‘each member of society needs harmony around him [or her] and the support of the other members in order to be able to function properly within his [or her] society.’ ⁷⁶ Solidarity, harmony, and unity become the cornerstone for Basil's friendship. Basil believes that the spiritual reality of the Church as the body of Christ provides strong grounds to live this communion. The detachment between the members of the body is an unnatural condition. ‘Nothing, brethren, separates us from each other, but deliberate estrangement.’ ⁷⁷

Basil, inspired by Clement of Alexandria's vision, had the ‘desire to restore the Church to a kind of friendship where all the members of Christ's body are united as close friends dedicated to serving God according to the true faith.’ ⁷⁸ For Basil, this image of friendship has local and universal applications. The local is expressed in more personal and practical relationships in which the church members are closely attached to each other. The universal application is more of a spiritual union that is maintained through prayers that can transcend geographical distances and through regular communication by any possible means (by letters for instance).

Friendship in Basil's view is not limited to a specific social position. Basil was friends with the poor and with the rich. Basil frequently interceded for the poor, referring to them as ‘his friends.’ He urged his addressees – people in high authorities – ‘to take care of his friend's estate as if it were his own.’ ⁷⁹ The testimony of his friends confirms this. Gregory of Nazianzus, for instance, describes Basil as ‘a friend of the poor.’ ⁸⁰

The monastic community is Basil's utopia to practice true friendships. Prayers, fasting, chastity, manual labor, and poverty are the pillars of such a communal life. When members of coenobitic monasticism live ascetically, are continuously detached from material desire, and share what they own in service to the afflicted, they offer an ideal image of a community of friends. ⁸¹ Basil gives special emphasis to singing the psalms in creating and maintaining harmony between the community members. He writes, ‘A psalm forms friendships, unites those separated, conciliates those at enmity.’ ⁸²

Gregory of Nyssa

Gregory of Nyssa is well known for his views on the epectasis, the infinite perfection in becoming like God. This everlasting progress to perfection is likened to friendship with God. ‘It is a road that is predicated on freedom and desire for God, not slavery and fear of God.’ ⁸³ For Gregory, true friendship, especially with God, is not transactional or driven by fear of punishment or hope for rewards. It is not like a business deal, where actions are motivated by what we can gain. True friendship is about valuing the relationship itself, seeking it not for personal gain, but for its own sake. The mere aim is ‘to be known by God and to become his friend.’ ⁸⁴ The only true fear should be falling from that bond, and the only thing truly worthy of honor is becoming a true friend of God. This, in essence, is the perfection of life: living for the relationship, not for external benefits or promises. ⁸⁵

Gregory, following Clement of Alexandria, uses John 15:15 to show that the Word does not only free us from slavery to an average relationship, but he elevates us to become friends and consequently, we share what is his. He writes:

‘I take my start from the inspired teaching, and boldly declare that the Divine Word does not wish even us to be slaves, our nature having now been changed for the better, and that He Who has taken all that was ours, on the terms of giving to us in return what is His, even as He took disease, death, curse, and sin, so took our slavery also, not in such a way as Himself to have what He took, but so as to purge our nature of such evils, our defects being swallowed up and done away with in His stainless nature… And that what I say is true I call the Truth Himself to witness, Who says to His disciples “I call you no more servants, but friends.”’ ⁸⁶

John Chrysostom

For John Chrysostom, ‘there is nothing good without friendship.’ ⁸⁹ He was convinced that ‘friendship was not only possible but essential in a Christian life.’ ⁹⁰ The aim of the Christian life is to become friends of God. Chrysostom strongly ‘believed in the value of friendship between Christians.’ ⁹¹ According to Chrysostom, ‘a friend is a second self,’ ⁹² ‘a friend is sweeter than this life itself.’ ⁹³ On many occasions, he praised friendship with the uppermost elegant words. While he seemed to adopt some of the philosophical views of his times regarding friendship, his exhortation on this topic is not just a philosophical idea. Instead, it is based on biblical truth. In his speech on friendship, he often refers to biblical figures and above all the example of Jesus as the prototype of Christian friendships.

These friendships are spiritual ones and surpass in their value the natural relationships that are between family members or those emerging from everyday life. ⁹⁴ Chrysostom recognizes different levels of friendship. He speaks of ‘genuine friends’ who are ‘men of one soul, who would even die for each other, who love fervently.’ ⁹⁵ A genuine friend ‘prays for the same things as for himself.’ ⁹⁶ A true friend cares ‘for their friends’ salvation by encouraging and rebuking them so that they may cling to the spiritual values of their shared faith.’ ⁹⁷ Against this ideal, there are ‘nominal friends’ who may be numerous but lack all the qualities of genuine friendship. There are also friendships that develop for the wrong reasons; as a way of reciprocal love, to be close to honored people, or because they are useful in worldly matters. ⁹⁸ These, for Chrysostom, are not Christian friendships.

Referring to the primitive church, Chrysostom stresses that ‘there were then no such words as mine and yours. This is friendship, that a man should not consider his goods his own, but his neighbor's, that his possessions belong to another; that he should be as careful of his friend's soul, as of his own; and the friend likewise.’ ⁹⁹ Chrysostom takes seriously the ‘holding everything in common’ within the Christian practice of friendship. It is a spiritual and material common life. This leads him to emphasize that charitable deeds are to be performed from a friend to a friend. Acts of love towards the needy must be done in a way that does not make the recipient feel less and in debt to the giver. He then concludes, that ‘with a friend even poverty is tolerable, but without him both health and riches are intolerable.’ ¹⁰⁰ In sum, the poor need friends, not donors.

Chrysostom takes this idea further and claims, in a similar way to that of Clement of Alexandria, that to become a friend of God, one must become a friend of the poor. ‘The rich and powerful or even the well-educated being our local patrons, who, as “friends of the emperor,” intercede for us before him, for Chrysostom the saints and the poor are the true friends of our heavenly emperor.’ ¹⁰¹ In this way, it is the one who gives who is in debt to the one who receives.

For Chrysostom, it is a ‘great wisdom, to be able to be a creator of friendship.’ ¹⁰² He mentions some insights on how to cultivate and nurture genuine friendships: denouncing love of money, envy, and pride, obtaining a gracious tongue, sharing hardships and joyful moments, and partaking in the Eucharist. ¹⁰³ Once these true friendships are developed ‘based on spiritual love in the unity of the body of Christ, [they] could indeed be maintained despite [physical] separation.’ ¹⁰⁴ They could extend beyond their geographical limitations.

Friendship with the poor and the Eucharist has a special place in Chrysostom theology. He points out that it was in the context of the Eucharist that Jesus pronounced the transformation of the relationship with his disciples, ‘I do not call you servants any longer, … but I have called you friends.’ (John 15:15). So, for Chrysostom, three interrelated ideas govern this relationship: First, in the Eucharist, Christ enters into a friendship with his people. Second, God has a special place for the poor in God's banquet, i.e., the Eucharist. Third, the congregation must follow God's example and imitate God at their own tables. ¹⁰⁵ ‘Indeed, “nothing is colder than those who are made friends” at the tables of the rich, while the tables of the poor “produce friendship, not with humans, but with God.”’ ¹⁰⁶

Christian friendships are ‘based on knowledge and discernment.’ Relationships that are shaped ‘without reason … are weak and even dangerous.’ ¹⁰⁷ That is why Chrysostom regards developing genuine friendship as a question of desire and intention. One must pursue it with one's utmost power. ¹⁰⁸ He acknowledges that cultivating true friendships is not an easy task. ¹⁰⁹ It is only because Jesus commanded this kind of relationship between his followers that Chrysostom believes it is possible to attain it. ¹¹⁰ In this way, according to Chrysostom, developing friendship exhibits strong intentionality.

We also learn about Chrysostom's views on friendship through his personal life. One example is when he speaks of his friendship with Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nazianzus as a true genuine friendship. ¹¹¹ They had one common goal, and they encouraged each other in the pursuit of this goal. Another example is his friendship with Olympia which was a friendship ‘based on a shared and whole-hearted devotion to the service of Christ.’ ¹¹² A friendship for the edification of the Church. Also, we read about other friendships that he maintained even during his exile. ‘The fact that their friendship continued with such intensity after Chrysostom left Constantinople, is evidence for its strength.’ ¹¹³

His friendship with Olympia offers a supplementary dimension in our discourse on friendship. ‘[In] the extant letters from Chrysostom to Olympias, [he] offers his friend advice and consolation and provides details of his everyday life and thanks her for her support — it is clear even from these letters that their relationship was not one-sided but that there existed strong bonds of reciprocal feeling and mutual concern.’ ¹¹⁴ It is remarkable that Chrysostom, for whom the basis of friendship is holding everything in common, saw in a woman the possibility of becoming a true friend. This widens the conception of friendship to include friendship between the sexes. ‘It is the spiritual, ecclesiastical context which is the setting for equality between the sexes; the Church can offer what secular society cannot.’ ¹¹⁵ By so doing, Chrysostom practices what he praises as ‘Justice conjoined with friendship.’ ¹¹⁶ He envisages a church ‘in which all the friends (women and men) [share] everything and [are] as concerned for the welfare of their friends’ souls as for their own.’ ¹¹⁷

On the other hand, the absence of true friendship has its damaging consequences. Chrysostom points out that it makes the person miserable. ¹¹⁸ Moreover, devaluing friendship leads to heresies and greater sins. ¹¹⁹ If the person does not seek friendship, that means that they pursue power and dominion which leads to all kinds of evil. In sum, not pursuing friendship is extremely harmful to the extent that ‘nothing is so injurious to mankind as to undervalue friendship; and not to cultivate it with the greatest care.’ ¹²⁰

Desert Wisdom

Friendship in monastic tradition refers foremost to friendship with God. This concept has been developing in various directions throughout history. Anthony the Great said, ‘None of us chose this way of life so as to have foreknowledge of the future but so that, obeying the Lord's commands, we might begin to be his friends rather than his servants.’ ¹²¹ Macarius the Great calls Christ, ‘the true friend,’ for whom we ‘ought to regard all other things as irrelevant and of little value.’ ¹²² This ideal of friendship with Christ is depicted in a six-century Coptic icon, known as ‘the icon of friendship.’ In this icon, Jesus stands next to Abbot Minas, his left hand holds the Book of the Gospels, and his right hand is placed on the left shoulder of Minas. Roger de Taizé comments on this icon saying, ‘By this gesture, he (Jesus) takes upon himself the faults, the errors, and all the weight that weighs on the other. He is not in front of his friend: he walks with him, he accompanies him.’ ¹²³ Later in the eleventh century, Nikitas Stithatos teaches that friendship with Jesus develops by carrying out his commandments. This is not possible if the monk does not hate money, ‘for money lures towards itself the mind of whoever loves it and diverts it from love for Jesus.’ ¹²⁴

Friendship with God must be accompanied by friendship with the neighbor. In monastic literature, there is often an overlap between philia and agape, or friendship and love. As Anthony the Great said, ‘Know my brothers that our life and death depend on our neighbor.’ ¹²⁵ The stories of the desert show that despite the monks’ and nuns’ deep appreciation for solitude – or perhaps because of it – friendship held unique importance. ¹²⁶ Desert wisdom stresses that human friendship must emerge from a genuine relationship with God. Without this foundation, friendship cannot endure. Thus, true friendship with others is rooted in and sustained by friendship with God. Abba Poemen said, ‘Certainly he who seeks exclusively the friendship of men distances himself from the friendship of God, so it is not a good thing to please everybody. “Woe unto you,” he says “when all men shall speak well of you” (Lk 6:26).’ ¹²⁷

Friendship within monastic communities has been a debatable topic. Those in favor speak of harmony and unity needed for communal life. They allow special relationships according to each one's personality. Those in opposition warn against partiality, the creation of subgroups, and ultimately a divided community. They prefer the fraternal model where nuns/monks love everyone equally.

Friendship between monks has proved on many occasions a useful means of correction. One example is the friendship between Epiphanius Bishop of Cyprus and John Bishop of Jerusalem in the fourth-fifth century. They shared a deep friendship that began when they were monks together at St Hilarion's monastery. When John, later the bishop of Jerusalem, became consumed by the love of money, neglecting the poor, Epiphanius was distressed by his friend's behavior and sought to correct him. Through a clever act, Epiphanius borrowed John's silver vessels, sold them, and gave the money to the poor, hoping to awaken John's conscience. When John became blind and begged for help, Epiphanius prayed for his healing, restoring one of his eyes while reminding him of his past charity. This event prompted John to turn his life around, embracing charity and generosity until his death, leaving behind a legacy of healing and faith. ¹²⁸

Friendship between the superior and the rest of the monastic community has also been a topic of discussion. Symeon the new theologian writes: ‘Do not seek friendship with the senior members of the community, and do not hang about their cells; for if you do, not only will the passion of self-esteem begin to take root in you, but you will be disliked by the superior.’ ¹²⁹ From the side of the superior, Basil of Caesarea instructs the superiors to treat the monks as their friends in imitation of Christ's love for his disciples. ¹³⁰

Synthesis of an orthodox patristic missiology of friendship

Orthodox missiology informed by Patristic views on friendship promises to offer an alternative to defective neocolonial and business-like models. Friendship proposed by other traditions can find its echo or rather roots in the patristic legacy and the Orthodox way of reading it. Reinstituting friendship as a missiological paradigm is a promising step, but without nuancing this concept, it risks being deficient. The need to explain what we exactly mean by friendship is especially pressing today, where ‘under the conditions of a social media society the terms friends and friendship have become especially ambiguous.’ ¹³¹ In this article, we drew from the Patristic tradition to reorient views on friendship and recover its profound Christian meanings and practices. Based on what has been presented, friendship has proven to be a subversive practice. Commitment to true friendship can radically change our perception of mission. It can inform and transform small and large-scale mission work. By weaving together key threads offered by select Church Fathers, we can develop a more holistic approach to mission. Here are some features of this model:

- Friendship with God is the foundation for friendship among humans. Central to Christian life, friendship with God is transformative, shifting individuals from servitude to an intimate relationship with God.