Never Lord

 The interesting thing that happens is that Peter rebukes Jesus when Jesus says that he's going to have to take up his cross and die. Jesus in turn rebukes Peter by saying to him that he has in mind the things of man, and not the things of God. And that seems to be the breakdown between God and humanity. Peter does not have in mind the things of God, but is that a problem unique to Peter? When Jesus says 'get behind me, Satan,' is this an issue that Peter has, or is it a bigger problem?

Honestly, if we were able to have in mind the things of God, we wouldn't be in the situation that we're in. I'm more convinced than ever that a lot of issues that are at the root of our problems are formed in a complete inability that we have to see things from each others perspectives. That is, you will be fighting about where someone left a plate, or whatever. Both sides believe, sincerely, that they're being perfectly reasonable, whereas the other person is being completely unreasonable. That problem is brought forward by the inability of the other party to seriously engage with the viewpoint of the other. There was a semi-viral blog post out there that had the title of 'she divorced me because I left dishes by the sink.' That blog post, whether you agree with the content or not, encapsulated the issue perfectly by illustrating a matter that was irrelevant to one party, of great consequence to the other, and the inability of each person to see and understand the perspective of the other person. In other words, the husband at the time said 'I don't think this is a big deal, so you shouldn't either.' And that line of thought is a real, genuine issue to be pondered. Can you, not as a husband or wife, parent or child, but human being in God's creation, ever really have in mind the things of another? Is it possible for you or I to effectively see things from someone else's perspective to the point that it adjusts our behavior, or are we likely to filter their experience through our own to the extent that we will view the other person's needs only in relation to our own.

That's why when the Lord Jesus Christ discusses morality in what we would call the Golden Rule, he does so by using our own perspective, turning that from a liability into a benefit. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Jesus knows what is in the heart of man, and therefore he is going to work with the material as it actually exists, not as we would hope it exists. So he's not going to say to you 'you should treat people the way they want to be treated' because that would run things through our own perspective anyway. But that perspective you have is supposed to influence how you treat other people. If your wife says that she would rather you not leave dishes by the sink, you're not supposed to say 'she shouldn't care,' but rather 'If I voiced a concern to someone, how would I want them to respond to me?' Then you act accordingly. 

We can, and should, do this with one another, but what about when it comes to God? When it comes to the Lord God, can we default to the golden rule? Not really, for God doesn't need anything from us. We aren't living in a universe where we can treat God the way we want to be treated. Our job is not to behave that way, but to be obedient, to listen, and so on. But part of the reason that we can't have in mind the things of God is because God is utterly alien to us, as high as heaven is from the earth, so far are his ways than our ways. The end of the book of Job is simply a big long discussion of how difficult it would be for Job to possibly understand how God operates. Job is a man of dust. He can get sick and hungry, he can weep when his children die, he can starve when his crops get stolen, that kind of thing. God cannot. It's real hard to have in mind the thing of God when you're starving, or grieving, or hungry, or just living in the world. The great wager between Satan and God was that Job would curse God if his human condition became bad enough - Satan believed that Job would only ever be able to view his relationship with God through his own lens as a human.

So, once again, if we were able to do a good job of having in mind the things of God, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in. But if we can't have in mind the things of one another, if our morality must, by necessity be run through a filter of ourselves, then God is going to have to bridge the gap for us. He's not going to wait for us to have in mind the things of God, because we're never going to get there. But what he will do is to say 'if you're not going to have in mind the things of God, then God will have to have in mind the things of man.' A great part of the incarnation is understanding how close God has to get to us in order for us to have any kind of relationship with him at all. This ain't 50/50. It's not even 70/30. You're looking at a world in which for any kind of relationship with God to happen, he's going to have to do all of it. We're not going to have in mind the things of God, so he's not going to make that a condition. He's going to instead have in mind human beings, their lives and relationships, their weaknesses and frailties, and to do all the work of redeeming them, because they're just not able to do that on their own.