6Let those who are friendly with you be many,
but let your advisers be one in a thousand.
7When you gain friends, gain them through testing,
and do not trust them hastily.
My approach to friendship is reflected in verse 6 and Kate's in verse 7. Yet they are in parallel construction, they are saying the same thing. The passage goes on to speak of the types of friends one may have but who are not constant friends, those who fall away in trouble or turn on you and become an enemy. Friendship is difficult, I appraoch that difficulty letting myself be friendly with many while knowing that in my larger group of friends there are those few who are my advisors, those I trust to stick with me. I often know who these people are very early on. Kate I think in contrast tests her friends and much of our discussions are arround how not to trust people too hastily, as well as how do you have many with whom you are friendly but only trust the one.
It is encouraging that the difficulty of friendship and defining friendship is not new, but I wonder if a certain temptation is peculiar to friendship in a society with democratic values. Equality and being egalitarian are high virtues in our society and yet if Ecclesiasticus is correct friendship is not egalitarian, friendship means trusting one more and others less, in fact this discrimination is wisdom itself.
What I hear in verse 5 and 6a is a call to be impartial in one's general dealings with others, to borrow from the Apostle Paul "So far as it depends on you be at peace with all people." Jesus healed any and all, entered anyone's house no matter who they were, but he chose 12 disciples and one of those, was the one Jesus loved. This is perhaps the challenge of friendship and of a life of faith we are to be impartial and discriminating at the same time. Not all friends are to be trusted with your very self. We all are loved by God, some of us know God better than others. Some of us are more trustworthy than others, some of us trust God better than others of us.
Perhaps God is impartial, but perhaps God is not an egalitarian. In generality we are all equal in specificity there is call for descrimination, not everyone is to be trusted not all see God.
powered by performancing firefox
Good post. Some random thoughts.
ReplyDeleteI agree that God might not be an egalitarian. As a teacher, I the drive to treat everyone equally is an impulse I fight every day. Or perhaps I should put it in a positive form: as a teacher, every day I strive to treat everyone fairly but appropriately.
Benedict isn't an egalitarian, but neither is he an authoritarian. He's a communitarian who believes in personal growth. The Rule of Benedict says both
Let [the Abbess] make no distinction of persons in the monastery. Let her not love one more than another, unless it be one whom she finds better in good works or in obedience.
and
In her teaching the Abbess should always follow the Apostle's formula: "Reprove, entreat, rebuke" (2 Tim. 4:2); threatening at one time and coaxing at another as the occasion may require, showing now the stern countenance of a mistress, now the loving affection of a mother. That is to say, it is the undisciplined and restless whom she must reprove rather sharply; it is the obedient, meek and patient whom she must entreat to advance in virtue; while as for the negligent and disdainful, these we charge her to rebuke and correct.
Depending on the treatment, treating everyone the same way is unjust, isn't it? If I punish all my students harshly for every instance of rule-breaking, I mistreat those who may have acted out of ignorance or by accident, while perhaps some who acted out of malice might be punished too lightly.
Yet the Golden Rule seems to suggest that we should trust others, if we want to be trusted; that we should be merciful, if we want mercy to be had on us. The Golde Rule doesn't have an asterisk on it: *treat others the way you would like to be treated only if you won't be taken advantage of.
We can't treat everyone in the same way, but we can love everyone equally.
You know Jorge, I had intended to comment on your thoughts, they are stimulating thoughts, especially your brigning into the conversation the Golden rule, treat others as you want to be treated, but then I personally don't want to be trusted blindly either. Trust me because I am trust worthy.
ReplyDeleteBut in a sense the issue is love, and love is larger then friendship, or rather friendship is a subset of love.
I think I may bring this back up as a main post.