5 Steps to Feeling Better About Killing Unborn Children

The old guard, out-dated media, hate-filled Christians, and a few pesky psychologists – as well as psychiatrists – have for too long persuaded the general public that abortion is harmful. Fortunately in recent times this oppressive narrative has been overturned. If we ignore the fact an unborn human is killed during an abortion, they certainly have become “safe, pain-free, and convenient.” But another phenomenon has been harder to deal with: our consciences. It is almost as if we know that killing another human out of self-preservation is wrong, even evil. So I have assembled a few of the choicest ways to get around your annoying conscience, arranging them into five easy steps.

1. Use cold, scientific, and dissociative terms

Firstly, you have to stop using phrases such as unborn child and words that make you uncomfortable, like ‘human,’ ‘baby,’ and ‘life.’ What you need to do next is depersonalise and dehumanise whatever is growing inside the womb. The word foetus is a great tool when doing this. No one gets attached to a foetus, surely a foetus does not have feelings or significance. I would go as far as saying you should give up the word abortion, opting for termination. You know, like when you cancel your contract with MTN or Standard Bank. You could go even further and refer to it simply as an operation, opaque enough that you could be speaking about the removal of an appendix. The bottom line is you must choose your language carefully, which will help you to think less about taking the life of an unborn, helpless child.

2. Major in women and forget the foetus

women's reproductive rightsThis step will sound both extremely selfish and selectively narrow, but you need to make abortion a matter of women’s rights, freedoms, and challenging the patriarchy. This is a very effective step because it proves that anyone who values a foetus does not value women. In fact, anyone who tries to tell a woman that terminating her unwanted growth – similar to cancer really – is wrong is a chauvinist and bigot. Who gets to tell others what they can and cannot with their bodies? Oppressors. This rhetoric provides a remarkably impressive smokescreen, entirely obscuring the fact that another body is even in the frame. If you find that this step is not working, either to ease your conscience or defeat your opponents, just remember that it is always those with power who get to choose, with no regard for the weak. And those weak-minded fundamentalists and even weaker foetuses have no say.

3. Forget the evils of ‘service providers’ such as Planned Parenthood

This is a very important step if you are to successfully sear your conscience about certain abortion practices and clinics. We do need to first consider the undeniable facts: Planned Parenthood sells the organs of terminated foeti. Now, this may sound like something that Nazi doctors would carry out, experimenting on hapless Jews and other minorities in the 1940s. But it is not, because they are experimenting on foeti, not humans. Though it is odd that the organs and tissue harvested from whatever is growing inside those pregnant women can be matched with and even given to actual human babies. While working towards forgetting the obvious evils done in these clinics we can also learn from these practitioners: they are remarkably calloused to the point that it is strength, like a worker’s blistered hands. Just listen to how they speak about killing unborn babies (crushing spines and dismembering foeti), without a hint of remorse. Powerful. Nietzschean.

4. Speak about victory, progress, and triumphs

planned parenthoodMany doctors around the world and throughout history have laboured tirelessly to preserve the lives of children growing inside the womb. Simultaneously – and somewhat ironically – vast progress has also been made in the field of abortions. This might seem disingenuous. On one side doctors are caring for these foeti and on the other they are killing them, yet both are commended. But let’s overlook this peculiar paradox and speak exclusively about historical victories, such as Roe versus Wade and Casey versus Planned Parenthood. Thanks to these momentous triumphs women have reclaimed their reproductive rights and bodies. Simultaneously the shackles have been thrown off of medicine, meaning its advances can now be used to kill those it was designed to and initially sought to protect. Progress indeed.

5. Believe the lies

I am not here revisiting Planned Parenthood (above), or medical professionals who have successfully grown wealthy by butchering humans and trading their body parts. I want to finish where we started. Many people who have had abortions might try and tell you they regret it, will never forget it, and suffer intense emotional scarring as a result of it. What should you make of this? There is no doubt that the vast progress in the field of medicine means abortions are standard and safe procedures, resulting in little or no pain. Your body, future reproduction, and sex life will not be endangered. But will you be able to walk away both physically and emotionally whole? Yes, of course. What do those people who have had abortions and spend their entire lives regretting them really know? This is arguably the hardest step, because it involves the killing off of your conscience. If you are unable to do that, then abortion – for whatever reason – will always haunt you. So believe the lies: convince yourself that killing an unborn, defenceless, and  miraculous new life will not affect you, permanently.

Doodle: Hellenism, Ethics, and Old Testament Eschatology

Max Bemis, of the band Say Anything, sings: “God and death are none of my concerns / I’m no philosopher”. And these words have often struck an uneasy chord with me, provoking much reflection. Studying philosophy at college I noticed that from the pre-Socratics through to the Hellenistic philosophers, Greek philosophy gave little thought to god, except for when a godlike being was invoked to explain their philosophy, see Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover. But this is not to say that the Greeks did not believe in the gods, however anthropomorphic the Olympians were. Coming back to Bemis’ words, a difficult question to get one’s mind around is the difference between religion and philosophy, or perhaps faith and reason.

Antonio Verrio - OlympusIt seems to me, that the Greeks separated philosophy from their religious beliefs, as my lecturer Nathan Lovell said, ‘They no longer wanted to attribute the workings of their world to capricious gods seemingly little more than infantile projections of men.’ Philosophy came about to explain the world around us, what it is, why it changes, and where it comes from. And this was done with little reference to the Greek gods. Philosophy could provide epistemology and ontology, though both then and today it struggled to provide complete or consistent ethics. Furthermore the question of death, which, though running the risk of reductionism, we might call eschatology, fell largely by the way side. Perhaps these then are two distinguishing features between philosophy and religion. Only, they are not distinguishing features because philosophy does not deal with them, but because it lacks the depth to do so.

Generally, in Greek thought all the deceased went to Hades, but we must not assume that this the same as Sheol of Jewish thought. Without going into major detail, it is a well attested to fact that the Jews understood death very differently to their Greek counterparts. At the transfiguration we are shown that Elijah and Moses lived with God (Mark 9); in the Old Testament some believers did not die and went to be with God (Genesis 5:24; 2 Kings 2:11); this was also asssumed of believers who died (Psalm 23:6; 16:10-11; 17:15). We are not given much explanation of it but, at the raising of Lazarus, an embryionic theology of resurrection is evident amongst the first century Jews (John 11). In Hebrew thought the great hope of a future when God would be with his people is hard to get ignore (Psalm 27:4; 73:25-26). A personal God, contrast with impersonal philosophy, offers eschatology, an answer in death. Whereas philosophy battles to provide any real answers about our future.

Raphael - AthensHow philosophers got around this is seen in the Hellenistic philosophies of the Epicureans, Cynics and Stoics. If we look at the Epicureans, their solution to this problem was extravagant and unchaste hedonism. Such an approach was (and is) not only exclusive and classist, since few could afford such an extravagent lifesytle, it was ultimately nothing more than hopeless distraction. Cynicism, on the other hand, radically devalued human life, reducing us to little more than stray dogs scrounging for scraps. But it is hard to think that the avoidance and abandonment of happiness is an argument proving that it cannot be lost. Lastly, Stoicism approached life rationally, excepting all that happened in a fatalistic manner, attempting to merely make the most of what is. This philosophy, not unlike existentialism, gives a bleak coating to life and denies questions of justice, while also leaving moral decisions to the aristocracy. It is therefore no wonder that most of these philosophies, at least in terms of their operating titles, did not last. But if we look beneath surface of how people think today we will discover more Hellenistic philosophy than we think.

When Jesus bursts onto the scene we see a major contrast to Hellenism, which was the fruition and expansion of Old Testamant eschatology. He promises a resurrection to new life, guaranteed by his own. He does not offer a pipe dream salvation or distract our eyes from the horizon, but gives us his Holy Spirit in the present who is a downpayment of our future, enabling us to live in light of it. Ethics, then, make sense, for we belong to a new kingdom; and they are not merely set forth by Scripture but are also engraved on our hearts by the Spirit who enables us to live as kingdom people. Does philosophy need god to make sense? I do not think it does. But does philosophy make sense of the burning questions that surround death? I do not think it can.

The Qualities that make a Gospel Worker

Many readers will likely know that if I can get the funds I need I will be doing a MA Theology (technically in Biblical Studies) in the States. One of my scholarship applications (which was rejected, read into that what you will) posed the question, “What qualities make someone a good minister of the Gospel and why?” I really enjoyed thinking through the answer to this question. Here is something of what I wrote – what would you say?


LoveWhen asked, “What qualities make someone a good minister of the Gospel?” I immediately think the answer must be whatever characterised Jesus. Jesus not only ministered the gospel, he is the gospel. Love is probably the simplest answer at which to arrive but is undoubtedly undermined by the flippancy with which we say it. For Jesus, it meant self-giving sacrifice in the extreme, I think of 1 John 4 and Romans 5. I don’t think we can begin to fathom the depths of what love means.

The answer seems associated with the greatest commandments, to love God and our neighbours. Certainly a good minister of the gospel must love God above everything he could ever dream of. It’s difficult to measure someone’s love for God though, but it can often be seen in his/her love for others. It does seem like a bit of a cheat to say “love” though, it’s too general, too abstract. What does love look like?

Love seen in Humility.

Philippians 2 was the first passage that occurred to me and humility the first attribute. I suspect that’s because whenever I believe I have humility, I find it is like quicksilver in my hands. Even so, pride and arrogance in the ministry never turn the focus to God but to the minister and that is always worthless. Jesus exemplified humility and “[our] attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus”.

Love seen in Service.

Closely related to humility is service. I pick service because it is something identifiable in a person. Again, Philippians 2 characterises Jesus as a servant and it is in service that we see Jesus’ self-sacrificial love at work. If we love people as ministers of the gospel, it will be a delight to serve them even when serving them is unpleasant because ultimately we are serving Christ.


HolinessPerhaps holiness should precede love. In any case, it is loving holiness and holy love that characterised Jesus and that should characterise a minister of the gospel. Of course the gospel is for the sick but it’s not the gospel if it never heals them. An indication that the gospel is at work in anyone’s life is a growth in holiness. Holiness, therefore, must be present in the life of a gospel minister. This is what Paul means when he looks for a man “blameless” or “above reproach” in Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3.


Prayer Prayer doesn’t really fall under holiness or love and yet it is tied to both because it is a matter of relationship just as holiness and love are. I could be wrong, but the only thing I recall the disciples asking Jesus to teach them is how to pray (Luke 11). Apparently disciples recognise the need to pray. It is also instructive to read Paul’s epistles and note how his prayers pervade his discourse. Prayer strikes me as a hallmark of a relationship with God.

Of course, Paul enumerates a number of other qualities. What qualities would you say make a someone a good minister of the gospel? What are the qualities you would look for?

The Ethics of Reading

Most people read to relax. It’s much easier for me Owl Readingjust to soak up the words as the pages turn than to consider the stance into which I am being drawn. I want to suggest, however, that this tendency is lazy and potentially dangerous.

As I am drawn into the narrative and become an observer of unfolding events, I make judgements based on the voice of the narrator or the character who relays the tale. Too often, this voice is heedlessly imbibed by its hearers and absorbed into their thinking patterns. The reader has to allow a text to speak in its own categories and understand it in light of its own judgement calls (unless we decide that our response is more important than the text to which we are responding, but that’s for another post).

In James Sire’s “Habits of the Mind” (p.148,150) he writes about reading directing our thinking explaining,

James Sire's Habits of the Mind“One begins to read, giving over one’s mind to the text and the primary meanings that begin to form. When the text of a great work fully engages the mind, when the reader is so completely occupied with what is being read, the world of the text becomes the world of the reader. … The mind of the reader becomes one with the mind of the author,”

“When reading directs thinking, one’s mind is absorbed in the mind of another. Many have certainly thought that dangerous.”

This, Sire (p.151) continues, gives rise to censorship of “dangerous literature”.

“The foundational insight leading to censorship is, however, correct. Books are dangerous, because the best of them are powerful conveyors of ideas, points of view, moral persuasion and the like.”

Sire realises that the words we read arrest our mind. The critical point with which he concludes this section is the fact that Scripture is the one text that should direct our thinking. The correct stance of a reader approaching Scripture is one whose categories and patterns of thought are foundationally malleable so that death can become assailable, entropy reversible, Eden restorable and the concepts of freedom and goodness fundamentally reordered.

Coming to Scripture without assumptions – willing, even, to disbelieve it – is, therefore, an inferior approach. The assumptions that the text produces in us of the death and resurrection of Christ and the purposes of God are critical to out interpretation and don’t make for a “blinkered, check-your-brain-in-at-the-door reading” but rather, a reading that enables our minds to be “renewed in knowledge after the image of their Creator”.

Fools and Firebrands (The Ethics of Deceit in Gameplay)

Like a madman who throws firebrands is the man who deceives and says, ‘Just kidding!’
(Prov. 26:18-19)

From lying in a game of Survivor in front of millions of viewers in order to win the million dollars, to a dummy pass in rugby for a clear run to the try line: a great deal of gameplay involves deceit to some degree. The question raised is, how much of this is innocent fun and how much is sinful?

We cannot take the question lightly, Proverbs 26:18-19 reads, “Like a madman who throws firebrands is the man who deceives and says, ‘Just kidding!’”. The Bible has no qualms about saying that “lying lips are an abomination to the LORD” (Prov. 12:22) and lest we have the idea that the Old Testament is the condemnatory one, “all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur” (Rev. 21:8) sits far within the New Testament. Of course, we must beware of the Pharisaical avoidance of harmless fun for the sake of what is essentially legalism. The question remains though: when we play a game of Mafia at a church social, are we just Christians having a good time or are we fools with firebrands?

This essay will construct a framework of three evaluative questions which will provide guidelines by which we can evaluate deception situations arising in games. In my original work, I applied these questions to various situations and if the present reader is interested, comments are welcome but as this is already too long, they have been removed. The cases I originally examined were extreme and certainly not every game will involve such cases but, as Thielicke (1968:460) points out, “only against this background of the borderline cases do phenomena come to light which are generally concealed by the more normal cases”.

Due to the complexity and nuance associated with trying to define terms accurately (especially when with a view to using them as ethical standards1), this essay will not attempt to define “lying”. The subject involves questions of intent, knowledge, method as well as means of communication all of which weigh in to create a complex subject. We can, however, agree broadly that deception occurs in gameplay. Therefore, rather than subjecting a scenario to a cumbersome definition that attempts to take every iteration into account, it would be more fruitful to develop a framework in which to think about deception in gameplay. We therefore turn to three questions by which we will evaluate deceit in games.

Three Evaluative Questions
        1. Behaviour Tolerance and Manipulation:
In Graham Houston’s (1998:54) book on morality in the virtual world, he raises the concern that exposure to the virtual world can cause, “thresholds of acceptable thought or behaviour to be shifted by such experience, so that actions which were repugnant become less so”. In other words, Houston is pointing out a twofold danger of virtual reality: that behaviour which may be intolerant in reality becomes increasingly acceptable after exposure in virtual reality. It is twofold because it leads to both tolerance of deviant behaviour in others, and can also be manipulation towards that behaviour in oneself.

The objection is that the exposure to “Game World” environments deadens our normal reactions to behaviour that would, outside of Game World be unacceptable. A Game World like Mafia or Survivor encourages or even requires players to do things that they would not normally do and teaches them to do these things effectively against the natural inclination to the contrary. It is a combination of the vulnerability of players to this manipulation and the duration of their exposure that poses the real problem. Just as movies receive age restrictions based on their content which has the potential to psychologically affect its audience, Game Worlds have the potential to change the way players think about and react in different situations.

Ultimately, wisdom will play the biggest role in determining whether prolonged exposure to a particular game is giving rise to a genuine problem. It is important, however, to bear this in mind and to consider the vulnerability of the players engaged in the game.

        2. Transsubjective Reality:
Perhaps a more significant point is how Game World ethics relates to “Real World” ethics. Thielicke considers the way reality confronts people in their lives through, for example, work, politics or economics. Ethical problems arise, according to Thielicke (1968:459), “out of our confrontation with reality”. This reality is not the transcendent kind of reality in which we all find ourselves, but the micro-realities of work or home or the pub where demands on our behaviour or manner differ from the transcendent demands of true reality, or “Real World”. “The scope of ethics is thus illegitimately reduced if it is limited only to the sphere of disposition and does not also embrace the problem of that transsubjective reality into which man is thrust and by which the free play of his action is restricted” (Thielicke, 1968:459). Thielicke is saying, for our purposes, that Game World is not outside of reality; Game World cannot escape the jurisdiction of the Real World.

Does this mean that Real World rules out the possibility of Game World? Surely not, it would be difficult to make a case that Christians cannot play games simply because games have their own sets of rules2. In addition, Thielicke’s point is that we all engage in micro-realities with their own sets of rules all the time. Each reality has differing demands on our interaction. For example, Thielicke (1968:545) offers, “Whenever I try to observe the canons of common etiquette I find myself uttering a constant stream of untruths.” His examples culminate in his explanation, “I often say “Goodbye,” a shortened form of “God be with you,” when what I really mean is “Go to the devil”” (Thielicke, 1968:545).

Sometimes Transcedent Reality collides with Subjective Reality. The criticism of “Transsubjective Reality” is, simply put, that some aspects of games are not confined to Game World and so Real World penetrates Game World in some respects. For example, a game in which players are randomly picked to be executed (in actuality), is not merely a game. An execution results in the death of someone in Real World, not merely in Game World: an unacceptable outcome. For this reason, Real World ethics preclude such Game World activity. Transsubjective Reality is saying that the reality in which we live – objective (transcendent) reality (without going down the rabbit hole of what that means) – transcends the subjective realities of game worlds: it is a “Transsubjective Reality”.

In the micro-reality of a game of Mafia, players understand that any other player could be their enemy and so they are all willing to deceive each other3. The evaluation of Transsubjective Reality asks whether the deceit is confined to Game World. A dummy pass in Rugby is clearly a strategic manoeuvre, misdirecting the opponent as a part of Game World. Similarly, we would be hard pressed to find fault in poker bluff since it is a part of Game World. We should note that both these scenarios could, potentially, have significant Real World consequences beyond merely victory or defeat: for instance, substantial financial rewards are associated with both games. The deceit, however, is confined to Game World. In a game of Truth or Dare, however, a deceit may well pervade Real World and so be unethical. To make a judgement on Mafia would be pre-emptive but this will become clearer when applied in the following section. What is important to see is that sometimes, aspects of a game escape Game World and reside, at least partially, in Real World.

        3. Love the Final Ethic:
Having just enumerated commandments in Romans 13 and reaching verse 10, Paul suddenly explains, “Love does no wrong to a neighbour”. “Therefore,” Paul concludes, “love is the fulfilling of the law”. While the question of behaviour tolerance and manipulation investigated the effects of the game on the individual player, we have not yet considered the other players. With a topic that can be the source of great controversy we need to carefully consider the effect of deceit in gameplay on Real World relationships of the players. This is not merely an extension of the previous point: even if worlds are shown not to interact at all and the point is nullified, the biblical imperative must pervade our every thought, word and deed.

To begin with, the biblical imperative demands that we take into account the rule of conscience. Paul tells us that our conscience “bears witness, and [our] conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse [us]” (Rom. 2:15). Therefore, he requires that we submit to the government “for the sake of conscience” (Rom. 13:5). This means that if our conscience decries our deceit, we should not be involved in the game since, “whatever does not proceed from faith is sin”4.

The ethic of love, though, is not about our own consciences, it is about that of others: love bids us consider the weaker brother. Paul’s discourse in Romans 13 is aptly summarised in verse 21, “It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble”. I cannot do better than to quote Paul at length, “I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. For if your brother is grieved by what you eat [or your deception, though in Game World], you are no longer walking in love” (Rom. 13:14-15) so Paul’s exhortation applies here also, “So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding” (Rom. 13:19).

Finally, Paul says something interesting in Romans 12:17. He has been exhorting the church to use their gifts and in the vein of “living in harmony”, loving “genuinely” and “with brotherly affection” we find Paul urge us not simply to do what is good but to “give thought to do what is honourable in the sight of all” (Rom. 12:17). This is interesting because it means that we need to think twice about doing something that brothers and sisters in Christ would frown upon. It is a high calling, especially considering we have weaker siblings but it is the calling to which he calls us.

All this does not mean that no one can play poker any more because it causes one Christian brother or sister to stumble. It does mean that in an effort to love one another and build one another up, we should be willing to forego a game of poker when that brother or sister is in our company. In addition should our own consciences be disturbed by whatever we are doing, we should excuse ourselves from the game without casting judgement on the remaining players.

Some Further Considerations
If I were to write this paper a second time there are some thing I would change. The first is that I now feel that the idea of Transubjective Reality is the only question that is being asked and so it would umbrella the other two questions and undergird the entire project. I also have not dealt with any real criticism (originally I had written something which did not truly deal with potential arguments against this take) and I am considering taking potential criticism more seriously (it is, therefore, welcome below). Some particularly relevant criticisms are: (1) on what basis may we say that game world can ethically exist? (2) rats, this is what happens when you don’t write things down. Of course, this paragraph is simply an appendage for the sake of a blog and so I’m not going to belabour it any further.

When it comes to deceit in gameplay, unless we are to take a hardline and condemn it all, it must be taken on a case by case basis. We have looked at three aspects germane to the consideration of deceit in gameplay and have seen how these considerations help us to determine the morality of deceitful actions in different circumstances. Hopefully now, we can participate in games as mature Christians, assured of our faith and never being found fools with firebrands.

I have included a pdf of my appendices: Appendix A explains the games in case anyone is unfamiliar with them. Appendix B lists some interesting case studies.
You can download it by clicking here.


  1. Initially this approach was considered but was ruled out because it is difficult for a definition to account for the nuances of reality. For such a discussion, see Don Fallis’ Lying and Deception (2010:1-22).  return
  2. Although, a strong case could be made against specific games whose rules are unethical. A game of Russian Roulette could be argued to be unethical because part of its rules requires killing someone in Real World. With deceit in gameplay it is harder to nail down. The trouble is that a game cannot have true deception unless deception is not required (otherwise trust which can be betrayed could never be built) and so if deception is not a requisite of the game, how can we argue that the game is unethical? At most we can say that the players are unethical.  return
  3. I have even been witness to citizens deceiving citizens in an attempt to “assist” the citizens who are deceived in identifying Mafia. Ironically, the only real exception to this is that the Mafia don’t deceive one another.  return
  4. Paul is arguing for Christian liberty but not at the expense of conscience specifically in the context of dietary restrictions, he writes that “whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith” and concludes explaining that “whatever does not proceed from faith is sin” (Rom 14:23).  return


  1. FALLIS, D. 2010. Lying and deception. Philosophers’ imprint, 10(11):1-22, Nov.
  2. HOUSTON, G. 1998. Virtual morality: Christian ethics in a computer age. Leicester : Apollos.
  3. MARSHALL, J. 2007. “Survivor” ethics: the saga of Dreamz and Yau-Man. [Web:] http://www.ethicsscoreboard.com/list/survivor.html [Date of access: 14 May 2011].
  4. STASSEN, G. H. & GUSHEE, D. P. 2003. Kingdom ethics: following Jesus in contemporary context. Downers Grove, IL : IVP.
  5. THIELICKE, H. 1968. Theolgical ethics: volume 1: foundations. London : Adam & Charles Black.
  6. YIN, T. 2007. “Survivor: Fiji”: ethics and lying in games. [Web:] http://yin.typepad.com/the_yin_blog/2007/05/survivor_fiji_e.html [Date of access: 14 May 2011].

The Limits of Emotional Intimacy between Christians

“Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart” (1 Peter 1:22, ESV)

It is the goal of this essay to explore the ethical limitations of emotional intimacy between Christians. For this to be done, we must, of course, understand what emotional intimacy is – this calls for us to forge a definition of emotional intimacy. We shall then mine the biblical data for its positive and negative statements concerning the ethics of emotional intimacy. Due to the complexity of the issue, the purpose of this essay is not to go far beyond this point. The essay does not aim to suggest practical implementation strategies of the conclusions we reach; we shall not go beyond the ethical boundary lines we draw into the life-situations they impact 1.

The basic argument of this essay will be that emotional intimacy is never suggested as sinful – in fact, it is only encouraged. Thus, emotional intimacy is ethically acceptable until it is perverted. We shall, of course, explore a number of these perversions.

1. Locating Emotional Intimacy: the home of friendship.

We reach our first hurdle when we attempt to define emotional intimacy. Smidt (2010) argues that intimacy is basically trust, and so emotional intimacy is concerned with trusting another person with your emotions. L (2011) extends this beyond emotions, and suggests that it is a sharing of your “innermost selves”; it is “unbridled mutual self disclosure”. This in turn leads Anon (2008) to speak of the deep knowledge of another person which is associated with emotional intimacy. The associated Wikipedia article (Emotional Intimacy, 2011) speaks of emotional intimacy involving “disclosing thoughts, feelings and emotions in order to reach an understanding, offer mutual support or build a sense of community”. These are provided as an example that although most definitions bear much in common, there is no widely accepted definition that is specific enough for us to work with.

Yet, because these definitions have much in common, it is fair to say that there is a broad definition that is accepted. This causes us to look for the concepts which are most common to definitions of emotional intimacy. When we do this concepts like closeness, vulnerability and love are in the ascendancy. We shall, therefore, operate on the understanding that emotional intimacy is a spectrum with three determining components: closeness, vulnerability and love.

With this in place we should notice that the biblical imagery of friendship consists of the same three components. According to the DBI (2000), one of the images used to represent friendship is the knitting of souls (see Deut 13:6). This kind of friend, states the DBI (2000), is “a companion of one’s innermost thoughts and feelings, resulting in an intense emotional attachment”. Here the companion’s intense emotional attachment results from the sharing of thoughts and feelings and portrays the idea of closeness, while their familiarity with their friend’s innermost thoughts and feelings portray an idea of vulnerability. The idea of love is also associated with the knitting of souls, and we see an example of this between David and Jonathan (Haykin, 2007): “the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul” (1 Samuel 18:1, ESV). Other examples of such friendship can be seen in John 11:5, 11, 35-36 (Haykin, 2007).

‘Love’ is particularly important. This is because ‘love’ is used, in the Bible, to speak of “the deepest possible expression of the personality and of the closeness of personal relations” (Palmer, 1996). Thus while ‘love’ can be used as one item in a subset of our above description of ‘friendship’, it can also be used as a synonym for this same friendship.

At this point a comparative word study, of φιλεω and αγαπη, suggests itself as fruitful. This would, however, be inappropriate, for it is highly unlikely that there is any clear distinction between these Greek words, which are translated as ‘love’ (Palmer, 1996). Furthermore, the Old Testament word אהב is “in every way as broad in its usage as the English word” (Palmer, 1996). Accordingly, we shall not make progress by pursuing such word studies, and so we should not proceed down such a line.

We shall use emotional intimacy to refer to the close, vulnerable and loving nature of friendships.

2. The Call for Relationship: mutual love in the church.

One of the important effects of Christ’s death is the establishment of the church (1 Peter 2:9). The language used to describe the church and its relationships carries with it the ideas of closeness, vulnerability and love. We shall consider each of these in turn.

Firstly, it is not insignificant that the language used to describe the church carries with it connotations of relational closeness (Ephesians 2:19-22). John Calvin (quoted by Morris, 2000), in his comments on Hebrews 13:1, goes so far as to say that “We can only be Christians if we are brethren”. For Christians to call each other ‘brethren’ draws them close as family, and familial closeness does not necessarily equate to relational closeness. Yet, passages like John 17:20-26 show us that this family closeness is marked by the same mutual love shared by the Father and the Son, which includes mutual self-giving, but it also has an aspect of ‘oneness’ or relational closeness.

Secondly, relational closeness implies a measure of vulnerability with each other. It is, however, still important that we highlight the specific biblical statements which call for this kind of vulnerability between Christians. Some of these include: mutual confession of sin (James 5:16); mutual edification (Hebrews 10:24-25); refusal to gossip (Proverbs 17:9); mutual comforting in affliction (2 Corinthians 1:3-7); mutual bearing of one another’s burden’s (Galatians 6:2); and sharing of counsel and mutual growth (Proverbs 27:9, 17). Each of these verses calls for Christians to share sensitive information about themselves with other Christians, thereby exposing themselves to potential injury. Consequently, it can be said that Christians are called to be vulnerable with one another.

Lastly, Christians are called to love one another. John 13:35 tells us that the perceivable mark of discipleship is reciprocal love amongst Christians. Thus Hebrews 13:1 calls Christians to “Let brotherly love continue”. The obvious implication of this is that when “people come to believe in Jesus and to become members of the church they are to love all the other members” (Morris, 2000). Yet this love is not static, for Morris (2000) goes on to suggest that one implication of 1 Peter 4:8 is that “believers are to work at making their love for others in the household of faith stronger day by day”.

Therefore it can be shown that Christians are to love, be close to and vulnerable with the church2. This leads to Christians adopting the title “Friends” (3 John 14).

3. The restrictions of mutual relationships.

3.1. These restrictions won’t be found in emotional intimacy itself.

We should, at this point, pre-empt a number of counter points by highlighting that there are no life-status limitations placed on friendships and that the biblical remedy for loneliness is friendship, and not marriage.

Firstly, there are no limitations, with regards to life status, placed upon friendships within the church. No sooner is this point noted than one considers passages such as 1 Timothy 5:1-2. However, what is called for in these verses is appropriate respect and honour for older men and women, and what is denied is condescension and sexual impropriety towards younger men and women (Stott, 1996: 125-126). These categories are not mutually exclusive with friendship. While we should not argue too strongly from the silence on this point, we should bear in mind the lack of restriction with regards to cross-gender friendships. This also applies to friendships between Christians of different ethnic, social, educational and marital status. If we wish to make distinctions at this point we may have to relegate them to the category of wisdom and not godliness. Furthermore, James 2 speaks against excluding Christians, based on their economic class, from the benefits of the new community.

Secondly, the biblical remedy for loneliness is friendship and not marriage. Ash (2003: 117) points out that the “Bible has a great deal to say about the longings of the human heart. This is more pronounced in some places than in others, but there is much about love, friendship and fellowship. It is very striking, however, that almost never are these longings and their satisfaction placed in the context of sexual relationship”. Ash (2003: 118) goes on to argue that this is seen clearly in Psalm 68:6, where God’s remedy for the specifically stated problem of loneliness is not sexual, but familial relationships – “the cure is belonging, security, trustworthy relationships, but not necessarily the marriage bed”. Clark (2009) wishes to locate this cure for loneliness within the church, for the gospel restores the relational ‘nakedness’ and mutual acceptance by making our union with one another a result of our union with Christ.

Thus we have our basis for exploring the limits of emotional intimacy. These limits will not be found in emotional intimacy itself, but will rather be found in perversions and distortions of emotional intimacy. We could perhaps group these as being rebellion against Peter’s call, in 1 Peter 1:22, for our mutual love to be sincere and pure.

We would do well to note the ambivalence of friendship circles; they can lead one toward or away from godliness. The reason for this is that emotional intimacy breeds trust, which in turn leads to one valuing a friend’s suggestions and opinions above any other critical assessment or input (cf. Lewis, 2002:97). Therefore, a high responsibility is placed on those who bear the trust of those close to them: to avoid causing their friends to stumble (Matthew 18:4-6), and to rather build them up in love and good deeds (Hebrews 10:24-25). The catalogue below is really an attempt to flesh out the major ways in which this could happen.

3.2. Privitism: emotional absorption.

There is the danger that emotional intimacy becomes exclusively private. It must be acknowledged that we are unable to reach deep emotional intimacy with an unlimited number of people, for each friendship demands time, and we are finite creatures. There will naturally then be groupings of those who are more emotionally intimate. However, these friendship circles cannot become insular or they begin to work against Jesus’ missiological intent for our ‘oneness’, as seen in John 17:20-21. It is in light of this that we should heed Lewis’ (2002: 73) wisdom that Friends are those who stand, “not face to face, absorbed in each other, but side to side, absorbed in a common interest”: the extension and edification of the church.

3.3. Idolatry: the fear of man.

The fear of man is otherwise known as peer pressure, or co-dependency. Welch (1997: 40) says that a person knows they are a co-dependent when they “are more concerned about looking stupid (a fear of people) than [they] are about acting sinfully (fear of the Lord)”. Thus we can say that this fear is reverence, which leads to submission to the explicit or perceived desires of individuals. It is appropriate to refer to this kind of reverence as idolatry. Further, this type of idolatry can be expressed in one particular relationship, a group of relationships (i.e. family relationships) or all relationships. Welch (1997: 24-40) argues that the reasons for one fearing people include fear of being exposed, humiliated or rejected.

Jesus presents a cutting response to this perversion of emotional intimacy. To the person who has higher reverence for people than God, Jesus says: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:26, ESV). Consequently we must trample under foot any emotional intimacy to which we give idolatrous reverence.

3.4. Sexuality: sexual intimacy.

One of the major issues to be concerned about when developing any deep level of emotional intimacy is the inclusion of sexual intimacy. Grenz (1998: 98-103) argues that the only proper context for sexual intimacy is “the permanent, monogamous relationship called marriage”3. However, sexual intimacy extends far beyond the physical act of coitus. Collins (2007: 340) asserts, “Sexuality pervades all of life and ranges from mild feelings of pleasure about human relationships to sensual lovemaking and stimulating orgasms”. Thus inclusion of sexual intimacy into any friendship outside of a marriage relationship must be said to be ethically inappropriate.

Let us be clear on the implications of the above. It is not to say that the potential for sexual intimacy between two people necessarily causes their emotional intimacy to be unethical. This would be to confuse what is distinguished. For “to say that something can be mistaken for, or turn into, something else is not to deny the difference between them” (Lewis, 2002: 88). It is when the intimacy becomes sexual that it becomes unethical.

Neither is it to say that all physical expressions of emotional intimacy are inappropriate. Ryken (2000) states that “Characteristic expressions of this union of hearts are an affectionate embrace or kiss, weeping, gift-giving and vows of loyalty”. Acts 20:37 provides an example of such physical expression to emotional intimacy. Further, Romans 16:16, 1 Corinthians 16:20, 2 Corinthians 13:12, 1 Thessalonians and 1 Peter 5:14 are all exhortations towards physically expressing emotional intimacy. Again we must say that it is when these expressions become sexual that they become unethical.

3.5. Selfishness: Indifference & Apathy:

In John 15:12-13 Jesus says, “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that someone lays down his life for his friends”. If we take nothing else from this, we must see that Christians are called to love fellow believers. There is a mutual exchange of love between Christians. Indeed, the DBI (2000) correctly points out that, “The proverb that “a friend loves at all times” (Prov 17:17) expresses both an obligation and a benefit. … In the Bible friendship is a mutual improvement activity, honing one for godly use”. This forces Christians to face indifference and pride.

Firstly, Christians cannot be indifferent towards the spiritual well-being of their fellow believers4. The letter to the Hebrews, addressing Christians, says, “And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another” (Hebrews 10:24-25, ESV). Additionally, Matthew 18:15 calls Christians to confront any other believer who sins against them, and call them to repentance. Therefore, each individual disciple of Christ must have their emotional intimacy marked by attempts to edify and rebuke their fellow disciples. Where emotional intimacy is based on, or formed around, the constant inactivity of one party, whether it is due to indifference or co-dependency (as outlined above), it must be seen as unethical.

Secondly, Christians cannot be proud, and so refuse the encouragement or rebuke of their fellow believers. The exhortations above always have concrete recipients – and where one Christian is called to stir another up to love and good works, there is always another Christian who is being stirred up. This is simply to restate the point which the DBI (2000) made about biblical friendship always being a mutual improvement activity. Thus, when one finds themselves to be recipient of either rebuke or edification, one should be humble and receive this as an essential part of emotional intimacy.

Fowler (2009) helpfully summarises the picture which emerges when he states that we should be balanced in our giving and receiving of edification. Proverbs uses the imagery of two pieces of iron sharpening each other to describe the manner of growth above; a manner of growth which is integral to emotional intimacy. We are called to build one another up, through mutual edification. Therefore, where emotional intimacy is not marked by humility and other-person centredness, it has been perverted and is not sincere brotherly love (1 Peter 1:22).

We are called to build one another up and to sharpen one another. We cannot, then, be self-centred, nor can we be apathetic about a friend’s sin.

4. Conclusion:

In this essay we have seen that emotional intimacy is a spectrum with three determining components: closeness, vulnerability and love. We have also seen that the biblical imagery of friendship comprises the same three components. Further, Christians are called to love, be close to and vulnerable with the church. Thus the church is the home of friendship, and therefore emotional intimacy. It was then argued that the ethical limits of emotional intimacy are not found in some intrinsic aspect but are rather found in perversions and distortions of the purity of friendship. We then proceeded to explore a number of these perversions. Throughout this essay the ethical call has become clear, and it is well expressed through the quotation at the beginning of this essay: “Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart” (1 Peter 1:22, ESV). This is the goal towards which we should strive, together.



1 There is, however, an additional attachment (in the email you received) with a number of suggestions of practical areas worth applying these conclusions to. Unfortunately, there was not the time to work through these points in detail. Return to post
2 Bear in mind that emotional intimacy is a spectrum and this does not call for absolute emotional intimacy with every other Christian, yet some measure of emotional intimacy should be present. Fowler (2009) provides a helpful example of this in the life of Jesus: “While Christ was on earth physically, He was not equally intimate with all His disciples. Out of the vast crowds who followed Him, there were seventy whom He trusted sufficiently to send out proclaiming the Kingdom. Of the seventy, He spent the majority of the time teaching only twelve men whom He had personally selected. There was only one family mentioned in Scripture with whom He frequently had fellowship. Only three of the twelve disciples were permitted with Him in His most revealing moments, such as on the Mount of Transfiguration and in Gethsemane. Finally, only one disciple was given the title “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” only one reclined on His breast at the Last Supper: John the Beloved. While on the cross Jesus charged John with the responsibility and privilege of caring for Mary and she was the only person for whom He made special provision after His departure”. Return to post
3 Ash (2003: 211) defines marriage as “the voluntary sexual and public social union of one man and one woman from different families. This union is patterned upon the union of God with his people his bride, the Christ with his church. Intrinsic to this union is God’s calling to lifelong exclusive sexual faithfulness”. Return to post
4 It is worth bearing in mind that these points here can equally apply for reasons such as co-dependency. Return to post


  • ANON. 2008. Intimacy. [web:] http://bit.ly/nuBnVc. Date of access: 14 May 2011.
  • ASH, C. 2003. Marriage: sex in the service of God. Leicester : Inter-Varsity Press.
  • CLARK, J.V. 2009. Single and Lonely: Finding the Intimacy You Desire [web:] http://bit.ly/qyirtk. Date of Access: 9 May 2011.
  • COLLINS, G. 2007. Christian Counseling: A comprehensive guide. 3rd ed. Nashville, TN : Thomas Nelson.
  • CROFT, S. 2007. Biblical dating: from “hi” to “I do” in a year. [web:] http://bit.ly/pZor9k. Date of Access: 9 May 2011.
  • DBI (The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery). 2000. “Friendship” Downers Grove, IL : InterVarsity Press. Available: Libronix.
  • Emotional Affair. 2011, April 17. In Wikipedia: The free encyclopedia. Retrieved May 9, 2011, from http://bit.ly/qqrdLd.
  • Emotional Intimacy. 2011, May 6. In Wikipedia: The free encyclopedia. Retrieved May 9, 2011, from http://bit.ly/qcv6TQ.
  • FOWLER, R. 2009. The Intimacy Trap. [Web:] http://bit.ly/nu6Lkq. Date of Access: 12 May 2011.
  • GRENZ, S.J. 1998. Sexual ethics: a biblical perspective. Carlisle: Paternoster Press.
  • HADLEY, S. 2008. Object of my affection. [web:] http://bit.ly/pLKijf. Date of Access: 9 May 2011.
  • HAYKIN, M. 2007. With a little help from my friends. [web:] http://bit.ly/nqM3S6. Date of Access: 9 May 2011.
  • L, C. 2011. Emotional intimacy. [web:] http://bit.ly/nzb0yc. Date of Access: 10 May 2011.
  • LEWIS, C.S. 2002. The four loves. London: Harper Collins Publishers.
  • MORRIS, L.L. 2000. Love. (In MARTIN, R.P., DAVIDS, P.H. Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments. Downers Grove, IL : InterVarsity Press. Available: Libronix.
  • PALMER, F.H. 1996. Love, Beloved. (In Wood, D.R.W. New Bible Dictionary. InterVarsity Press).
  • SMALLEY, G. 2003. Men and emotional intimacy. [web:] http://bit.ly/mYYVxl. Date of Access: 10 May 2011.
  • SMIDT, J. 2010. Reclaim biblical intimacy. [web:] http://bit.ly/pSjzZC. Date of Access: 9 May 2011.
  • STOTT, J.R.W. 1996. Guard the truth: the message of 1 Timothy & Titus. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. (The Bible Speaks Today).
  • THORNBURG, S. 2009. On becoming a safe male. [Web:] http://bit.ly/q8olju. Date of Access: 12 May 2011.
  • WELCH, E.T. 1997. When people are big and God is small: overcoming peer pressure, codependency, and the fear of man. Phillipsburg, NJ : P&R Publishing.
  • WELCH, E.T. 2011. Intimacy step 1: enjoying. [web:] http://bit.ly/is4avW. Date of Access: 10 May 2011.