Tag Archive for 'jesus'

Our Father

Published
by
Ken
on February 2, 2009
in bible and bible commentary
. 0 Comments

I’ve been motivated to look at The Lord’s Prayer in some depth. We never (or rarely) recited this prayer in the church I grew up in and, for the most part, these were just verses that I memorized at one point. There was not a lot of significance attached to them.  But, as I approach Christianity anew, after several decades of separation from it, and under the influence of Jungian Depth Psychology, something is drawing me to rethink this model prayer which Jesus has given us.

I want to start with the first two words: “Our Father.”

This signifies a change in the human psyche and how we approach and relate to God. The Old Testament was the story of our infant years where God was a (seemingly) capricious, loving/hating being out there somewhere, up there in the sky somewhere. Starting with Jesus, we now relate to God as child and, sometimes, like a teenager. We have a more conscious relationship with him and he treats us less arbitrarily (at least it seems like that to us).

Consider an infant who is crying because she is hungry and her father is offering a bottle but she really wants her mother’s breast. The infant is confused and hurt that she’s not getting what she wants and her father must seem so cruel. At other times, the father puts her in her mother’s arms and she gets exactly what she wants. There is no rhyme nor reason to this. Why does her father not always give her to her mother when she cries out of hunger? Why does he sometimes (seemingly) punish her by only offering that wretched bottle? The issue is that she has no other way of relating because she does not have enough consciousness.

Now, skip ahead to a 4 or 14 year old. Now, the child can address his father as “Father” and ask for exactly what he wants. The child is capable of understanding, in some cases, why the father gives what he does. With the child’s increased consciousness, the father’s actions seem less arbitrary. And this is where Jesus was taking us. He was showing that we have an increased consciousness and, therefore, can relate to God in a different way.

What this two-word phrase also identifies is our relation to God in an essential way. That is, by calling God “Father” we are acknowledging that we are of the same essence. My daughter has my genes and is made up of the same things that I am. We have matching DNA. Our basic reality or essence is the same. In the Old Testament, or as an infant, we do not recognize this. We cannot grasp the idea that this great, powerful being who gives us what he wants to give and not what we want to receive is of the same stuff as we are. But with increased consciousness comes increased awareness of what we are and what he is. We can recognize the imago Dei, the “in our likeness” that is within us from God. “Our Father” is not only said out of respect or out of love. It is also said out of identification — we are of the same essence as God. We share the same DNA.

A local church has a quote from Hafiz on their sign: “Little by little you will turn into God.” We do turn into our fathers. How many times have I done something or said something or caught a glimpse of myself and thought, “My God! My father does that! I’m turning into my father.” And this is the case with God, our Father. But it’s also the reality that we already are our father. Our DNA tells us that from the moment of conception. What appears to be a “turning into” is really nothing more than a “realizing that we already are.”

The Christian Life is …

Published
by
Ken
on December 17, 2008
in christianity and religious pluralism
. 0 Comments

God is real. The Christian life is about a relationship with God as known in Jesus Christ. It can and will change your life.

– Marcus Borg via The Rev’s Rumbles

What I want to emphasis in the above quote is the word Christian. It is the Christian life that is about a relationship with God as known in Jesus Christ. It is not life in general, but specifically the Christian life. It is not the Muslim life or the Buddhist life or the Zen life or … it is the Christian life. Other lives are also about a relationship with God but as known in or through other people or ideas and not Jesus Christ. But they are still about a relationshop with God.

Faith V

Published
by
Ken
on November 26, 2008
in carl jung, edward edinger, faith and the creation of consciousness
. 0 Comments

There is still something, nevertheless, that strikes me as very odd about these statements by Jesus and that is the purely gratuitous nature of the exemplary acts he cites as the result of having faith. Of what conceivable purpose could moving a mountain into the sea be? And what kind of God tempts man with such power when the meek are to inherit the earth? These statements are diametrically opposed to Jesus’ main message of humility and servitude and they make me wonder why he made them at all. Would it not be just as powerful yet more in agreement with Jesus’ teachings and life to give examples of faith like bringing rain during a drought or causing crops to grow in infertile soil?

But, Jesus used the words he used. There is no profit in second guessing his motives; only in understanding him do we gain anything. The simplest way to understand is to take him literally and then qualify his statements to make them comfortable. To this end, some will, as The Ryrie Study Bible does and with what seems to be not a little unease in attributing such power to mere mortals, put limits on the conditions under which Jesus’ statements are valid. Others will take Jesus’ words just as literally but then proceed to point out the obvious absence of literal mountain-moving men and consign Jesus’ statements to the dung heap along with all notions of a faith worth more than a single mustard seed.

Indeed, we have no record of Jesus, his disciples, nor the apostles moving either mountains or trees into the sea and there is no other evidence that he was speaking literally. So what would it mean to take his words metaphorically or symbolically? A mountain and the sea can be viewed as opposites on several different levels. Aside from the physical opposites of solid/liquid and high/low, mountains symbolize constancy, stillness, firmness while the waters of the sea are chaotic, continually in flux. Mountains represent the state of full consciousness, full differentiation, the place of renunciation and highest aspirations; water symbolizes the undifferentiated, our material existence. Casting a mountain into the sea can then be viewed as merging contrary or contradictory viewpoints and no longer seeing them as separate entities; it is to transcend dualistic thinking by not seeing a mountain here and a separate sea over there but both, together. It is to not apprehend either/or but both/and.

But, of what use is the ability to transcend dualism? How does it help me in my everyday life? Lisa Alther, American author and novelist, writes: “I happen to feel that the degree of a person’s intelligence is directly reflected by the number of conflicting attitudes she can bring to bear on the same topic.” This goes right to the heart of the matter. Dualism says, “This is good and that is evil or that is good and this evil.” But when you cast the mountain into the sea, this ceases to be either good or evil and becomes both good and evil. It is seeing both sides of the coin at the same time, it is the middle way, it is embracing paradox. We think of opposites as mutually exclusive. A thing cannot possibly have two opposite characteristics at the same time; it is either right or wrong, good or evil, left or right, black or white. But the world of paradox is not a world of white or black but a world of grayscale.

Holding all sides of an argument in the mind instead of identifying with one to the exclusion of all the others inevitably produces a tension—the tension of the opposites, as Carl Jung phrased it. Edward F. Edinger discusses this tension of the opposites and describes its effect as consciousness-creating:

[I]n the process of creating consciousness we shall at first be thrown back and forth between opposing moods and attitudes. Each time the ego identifies with one side of a pair of opposites the unconscious will confront one with its contrary. Gradually, the individual becomes able to experience opposite viewpoints simultaneously. With this capacity, alchemically speaking, the Philosophers’ Stone is born, i.e., consciousness is created.

This description of the initial stages of dealing with paradox cannot but bring to mind a similar passage in Ephesians 4:13-15:

[U]ntil we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fulness of Christ. As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects unto Him, who is the head, even Christ …

Paul describes the mature person as one who is not tossed and carried about by ideas and opinions, first clinging to one thing then another to the exclusion of all others. Notice that he places no value judgement on the “waves” and “doctrine” as he does on the latter two; it is not only untrue or false ideas that cause us to keep the mountain and sea separate. The goal of “the unity of the faith” and “grow[ing] up in all aspects” as described by Paul is reiterated by Edinger who describes the mature individual as one “able to experience opposite viewpoints simultaneously.”

[ Parts I, II, III, IV ]

Faith IV

Published
by
Ken
on October 24, 2008
in faith, ram dass and the only dance there is
. 2 Comments

We now come to some of the most provocative passages dealing with faith: Matthew 17:14-21 in which Jesus casts out a demon his disciples are unable to cast out; Matthew 21:18-22 and Mark 11:12-14, 20-26 in which Jesus curses the fig tree; and Luke 17:5-6 in which the disciples ask for increased faith. In these passages, Jesus describes the sheer power available to those with the smallest amount of faith:

… if you have faith as a mustard seed, you shall say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it shall move; and nothing shall be impossible to you. (Matthew 17:20)

… if you have faith, and do not doubt, you shall not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and cast into the sea,’ it shall happen. And all things you ask in prayer, believing,  you shall receive. (Matthew 21:21b,22)

Have faith in God. Truly I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and cast into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says is going to happen, it shall be granted him. Therefore I say to you, all things for which you pray and ask, believe that you have received them, and they shall be granted you. (Mark 11:22b-24)

If you had faith like a mustard seed, you would say to this mulberry tree, ‘Be uprooted and be planted in the sea’; and it would obey you. (Luke 17:6)

One of the most interesting aspects of these accounts is the fact that Jesus does not qualify his statements. In two of the accounts all that is necessary is faith like (or as) a mustard seed. In the other two accounts one only need to believe (or have faith) and not doubt. Now, to many, these statements must necessarily be hyperbolic and most will add de facto constraints on Jesus’ statements. For example, the Ryrie Study Bible includes a footnote for the Matthew 17 passage stating, “The will of God, of course, governs all things, including this promise,” and for the Mark 11 passage: “This principle is qualified by Christ in other teaching (Matt. 6:10) and in His own life (Mark 14:36).” In the latter footnote the first reference is the Lord’s Prayer in which we are to pray for God’s will to be done and the second is Christ’s prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane prior to his crucifixion in which he asks God to “remove this cup” but then defers to God’s will over his own.

But, in fact, Jesus does not qualify his statements to the disciples. If, as Ryrie’s footnote maintains, “the will of God, of course, governs all things,” then we have a few potential problems. The first is, of course, that God is responsible for evil since all things are governed by his will; but that is outside the scope of this article. The second is why tell us to pray that God’s will be done if God’s will governs all things? I shall return to this later. Lastly, Jesus is, to put it mildly, not being very fair. Imagine telling your daughter that she can have whatever she wants to eat but then deny her ice cream, cake, a lollipop, and a chocolate bar because you want her to have Brussels sprouts. If you already have in mind what she is going to eat, why give her the choice? If what happens is subjugated to God’s will then why tell us we can do whatever we want?

One way out of the last dilemma is simply to have your daughter ask for Brussels sprouts when that’s what you want her to have. In other words, have her desires coincide with your desires. It is precisely because there is no qualification that the desires of those having faith align with God’s desires that the desires of those having faith will, by definition, align with God’s desires. What Jesus is really telling us is what it takes to be like God: faith like a mustard seed, belief without doubt. Ram Dass takes this idea even further. In The Only Dance There Is, which is a transcription of two of his lectures, he says:

When Christ says “Had ye but faith, ye could move mountains,” he’s not putting you on. This is not some lovely metaphor saying it’s hard just to lead a good clean life. That isn’t what it’s about at all. He’s just telling you how it is: that were you at a certain level of consciousness you could move a mountain, literally. But the way it happens is very far out. It only happens when you have transcended that in you which is separate from the mountain, so that you are, in fact, the mountain, and then you move. … To the extent that you are the mountain that moves, you are also the being that put the mountain there in the first place. He neglected to say that could you move mountains, you probably wouldn’t because you put it there in the first place. (page 76, 77)

Not only are we like God, we are God. Faith puts us in a state where we realize that we are the one who put the mountain there in the first place. Either way, whether we have the same desires as God or we are God, this is a very powerful statement yet deceptively simple. “Have faith in God” and your desires will be those of God. “If you have faith like a mustard seed” you will realize that you are one with God. What could be more simple? Yet nothing could be harder for us to comprehend or achieve.

[ Parts I, II, III ]

Faith III

Published
by
Ken
on September 9, 2008
in faith
. 4 Comments

[ This series starts here. I've revised the last paragraph in installment #2 and included it here. ]

In what do we have faith? The pat answer is that we have faith in God or Jesus. A clue to how Jesus may have answered the question is in Matthew 16:5-12:

And the disciples came to the other side of the sea, but they had forgotten to bring any bread. And Jesus said to them, “Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” They began to discuss this among themselves, saying, “He said that because we did not bring any bread.” But Jesus, aware of this, said, “You men of little faith, why do you discuss among yourselves that you have no bread? Do you not yet understand or remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets full you picked up? Or the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many large baskets full you picked up? How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Jesus has two criticisms of his disciples: “Do you not yet understand or remember … ?” Their failure to understand is their misapprehension of his comment about leaven which is not a matter of faith. So, why did Jesus call them “men of little faith”? Because they saw him perform a miracle and doubted that he could do it again. To give them some benefit of the doubt, perhaps they saw this situation as different from the feeding of the five and four thousands. In those cases, they had some bread. Here they have none and see this situation as different and “harder.” One wonders what Jesus told his disciples of his temptation in the dessert. Had he shared what he went through, they would have known that he was able to turn stones into bread. But without this knowledge, this may have seemed an impossible situation. In any case, their lack of faith seems to be manifested in their doubt after seeing Jesus’ past miracles. At this point, even the disciples were not all convinced that Jesus was the Son of God so in what would they have anchored their faith other than Jesus’ past actions? The object of the faith is Jesus but the motivation for faith is in Jesus’ past actions. Is that also not the most logical reason for the actions of people we’ve discussed so far? Perhaps Jesus exuded some special pheromones or had a magnetic personality but it seems more likely that people saw his miracles and some had faith that he could do it again.

Indeed, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says that faith is not “blind” but is based on past experience. In the part about being anxious, Jesus says that we should have faith because we see what God does for the birds and flowers:

“But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, will He not much more clothe you? You of little faith!” (Matthew 6:30)

But it seems that simply seeing is not enough. As has been demonstrated in the miracles we’ve looked at so far, Jesus emphasizes the aspects of action and expectation in his sermon:

“Do not worry then, saying, ‘What will we eat?’ or ‘What will we drink?’ or ‘What will we wear for clothing?’ For the Gentiles eagerly seek all these things; for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.” (Matthew 6:31-33)

The centurion, the men with their friend on the roof, and the hemorrhaging woman all acted in a way that demonstrated their expectation of a healing miracle. The disciples in the boat during the storm acted but without the expectation of the desired outcome and were not credited with having faith. James 6:26 says that “faith without works is dead” and Jesus said “Do this and all these things will be added to you.”

We now come to a miracle in which faith is conspicuously missing (Matthew 9:18-26, Mark 5:21-43, Luke 8:40-42,49-56). The synagogue official, Jairus, who asked Jesus to heal his daughter seemed to be not much different than the others who demonstrated faith. He believed Jesus could heal but he is not credited with faith—in any of the three accounts. The subtle difference with Jairus’ approach is that he deferred to Jesus by saying “If it is your will …” He fully believed Jesus was able but questioned his willingness—just as the disciples questioned Jesus’ willingness to save them during the storm. Jairus did not presume the healing as did all the others we’ve looked at so far.

Faith II

Published
by
Ken
on September 7, 2008
in faith
. 4 Comments

[ This series starts here ]

The next two miracles add to faith an aspect of action. They bring to mind platitudes such as, “Just do it” and “Leap and the net will appear.” These are the stories of the man lowered through the roof (Matthew 9:1-8, Mark 2:1-12, and Luke 5:18-20) and the woman with the hemorrhage (Matthew 9:20-22, Mark 5:25-34, and Luke 8:43-48). In the former story, the narrative says that Jesus saw their faith. Now, putting aside any supernatural interpretation, what Jesus would have seen was their determination to get their friend in front of him—a determination demonstrated by destroying someone else’s property. Many, many people brought the sick to Jesus and they were healed (see Matthew 8:16). So, why was this group singled out as particularly faithful? Again, putting aside any notion of Jesus “seeing into their hearts” or “seeing their true nature,” we are only left with their deliberate action of putting the man in front of Jesus with the expectation of healing. They did not wait in line, they did not ask, they were essentially presumptuous that Jesus would heal if they got in his face. What about “make your requests made known unto God”?

The latter story of the hemorrhaging woman also indicates that faith is manifested by action. In this case, Jesus plays a passive role in the miracle and it is almost as if the woman heals herself. Again, we see presumption on the woman’s part: “If I only touch his garment I will be made well.” There is no notion of asking Jesus for healing or if it is his will. There is only “If I do … I will …” Now, many people were touching Jesus but only this one was healed because she knew she would be. It makes one wonder, did she have to touch Jesus’ garment to be healed? Could her faith not have healed her without doing that physical action? Or did she need to demonstrate her faith with a physical action?

In what do we have faith? The pat answer is that we have faith in God or Jesus. A clue to a more precise answer is in Matthew 16:5-12 where Jesus scolds the disciples about seeing his past miracles and not thinking he could do it again. So, the object of the faith is Jesus but the motivation for faith is in Jesus’ past actions. Is that not the most logical reason for the actions of people we’ve discussed so far? Perhaps Jesus exuded some special pheromones or had a magnetic personality but it seems more likely that people saw his miracles and some had faith that he could do it again. Obviously, not everyone held this opinion as our current story indicates with the disciples apparently forgetting that Jesus fed 5000 with five loves and two fishes. Indeed, in what else could these people possibly have had faith? It was not a foregone conclusion, at this stage, that Jesus was the Son of God so he would have been nothing more than another teacher; yet a teacher who was working miracles and teaching, perhaps, an offbeat message.

Part III

Faith I

Published
by
Ken
on September 7, 2008
in faith
. 5 Comments

[ I am working on an essay about Faith and will post it in several sections on my blog. I'm interested in any constructive criticisms you may have that will improve this piece. I will make the final essay available to anyone interested when it is completed. ]

Faith is one of the cornerstones of Christianity but what it means to have faith is open to interpretation. To the one extreme are those who take every precaution this world affords — life, health, disability, and dental insurance; retirement plans; consulting weather forecasts; etc. — and seem to leave little in the hands of faith. To the other extreme are those who avoid all medical care and rely totally and solely on God for healing. So, what is faith? What does it mean to “have” faith? Is there even an objective answer to these questions or is faith completely subjective? To shed some light on the matter of faith, I will look at the miracles which Jesus performed and attempt to find some common threads linking those which Jesus specifically attributes to faith. After establishing what Jesus constitutes as faith, I will look at how faith is portrayed elsewhere in the New Testament and what faith may mean for us today.

Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10 relates the story of the centurion who asks Jesus to heal his servant. The two accounts differ somewhat but the essential pieces of the story are that Jesus was asked to heal the servant and the centurion would not let Jesus come into his house but insisted that Jesus had the authority to perform the healing from afar. Being in the Roman army, the centurion claims that he knows something about and appreciates the power that comes with authority. This seems to be what constitutes his faith. It may also have something to do with the fact that the centurion attributed such authority to Jesus but it is not clear whether this was because he knew or believed Jesus to be the Son of God or because he simply recognized a man who possessed authority. In either case, the key seems to be the fact that the centurion knew that Jesus was able to heal his servant and acted on that knowledge by essentially telling Jesus that he had the authority (i.e. the power). The centurion further emphasized Jesus’ authority by not allowing Jesus to physically touch his servant but forced him to delegate, so to speak.

Matthew 8:23-27, Mark 4:36-41, and Luke 8:22-25 contain an example of a lack of faith with some similarities to the centurion story. This is the story of Jesus calming the storm after falling asleep in the boat with the disciples. The disciples had to wake him up to ask him to save them. Jesus calls them “timid” and “men of little faith.” But the reasoning is a bit confused in this story. If the disciples doubted Jesus’ power, his ability to save them, why did they bother asking him? Would they not have called out to some other god or attempt to save themselves? It seems that what the disciples doubted was Jesus’ desire to save them, hence is love for them, because they asked, “Do you not care that we perish?” This story comes after Jesus’ sermon in Matthew but before a similar discourse in Luke where he tells us to not be anxious for our everyday needs such as food, clothing, and by extension, not drowning in a stormy sea. Adding Jesus’ statements there to the equation, it seems that the disciples should have expected to be saved. Jesus, in his sermons, said, “And all these things shall be added to you.” The centurion told Jesus that he could heal the servant with the expectation that it would be done and this is what the disciples did not do.

So, faith, according to Jesus’ working definition, contains an aspect of expectation of the desired result.

Part II

The downside of anthropomorphism?

Published
by
Ken
on May 11, 2008
in christianity, god, holy spirit and jesus
. 5 Comments

Reading this post, from Inspirations and Creative Thoughts, about Islamic reaction to the doctrine of the Trinity got me thinking. What are the downsides of thinking about God in anthropomorphic ways?

Along the lines of this post from Exploring Our Matrix, I was also thinking about how the OT God is most often conceptualized as having a location. He was with the Israelites either as the pillar of fire or in the Ark or he was located on Mount Sinai. In all these cases, you could point to one spot be say, “God is there.” At times, God is seen as locating himself, temporarily, in one spot — as with Moses and the burning bush — which de-emphasises his human characterization. The implicit idea is that God was there to communicate with Moses whereas in the previous examples he was more firmly implanted for a longer time frame.

From the NT, we think of Jesus mostly in his incarnated form and as the son of god. We think of him as an historical person (indeed, some Christians fight tooth and nail for an historical Jesus and claim that Christianity is nothing without it) located in a particular place at a particular time. Even now, after his ascension, he is sitting sitting at the right hand of God — an image which restricts both God and Jesus to a particular space.

There is very little in Christianity that focuses our attention away from the human characteristics attributed to God. Sure we talk about his omnipresence but right behind the words is the image of a father. Even in the end, our souls - the numinous part of ourselves - end up located in space, in heaven, where we will be with God and Jesus. You know, I’ve never thought about seeing the Holy Spirit in heaven. Nor have I heard a sermon preached on what role the Holy Spirit will play in heaven. The one part of the Godhead which retains some non-human characteristic is blatantly missing!

The Trinity could be a medium for concentrating on the non-human characteristics of God yet even here we’ve named them God the father and God the son. We force the divine into a human-shaped mold.

Perhaps it’s not all that surprising given the strong anthropomorphic nature of the OT which is Christianity’s heritage. But I think that it is also one reason we react so negatively to other religions. We call the atheistic because they do not have a God that is a father figure. We call them nihilistic because they do not end up in a specific place when they die.

God is more than our anthropomorphic conceptions of him. We can’t even refer to god without assigning a human gender to … him. I think most Christians would be offended if we called God “It.” God is more than our human conceptions otherwise he would not be God; he’d be understood by us. So why do we insist that everyone hold the same limited conceptions as we? Can’t the ineffable be reduced to more than one subset of ideas and still be the same?

Jesus of Iowa

Published
by
Ken
on March 2, 2008
in jesus
. 3 Comments

I was in a Unity church recently and in one of the stairwells there was a picture of Jesus. He was in his shepherd’s garb and was holding a lamb — you know the one. The only problem was that Jesus looked like a farm boy from Iowa. I shook my head in disapproval and kept walking.

Why did I have that reaction? I think it was, in part, a throwback to my Fundamentalist upbringing. If Jesus was an actual, historical, flesh-n-blood person who was born in Bethlehem to Jewish parents then the odds of his looking like that picture are very slim. And shouldn’t a picture of someone look like they did look, or at least could have looked?

What would your response be to my hanging up this picture and saying it was Abraham Lincoln? (Picture credit: www.zztop.com)

That would probably not be very well received. Now, of course, we don’t know what Jesus looked like, but if he was an actual, historical, flesh-n-blood person who was born in Bethlehem to Jewish parents, shouldn’t we at least try to get close?

And what if someone does believe that Jesus was mythological or a conglomeration of ideas or an amalgamation of actual persons? Does that give them “artistic license” to portray Jesus in any manner they choose?

What are your thoughts on this?

Protection

Published
by
Ken
on January 15, 2008
in christianity and jesus
. 0 Comments

Massive Attack’s song Protection contains the following lyrics:

I stand in front of you
I’ll take the force of the blow
Protection

Lately, the image that is coming to mind when I hear these lyrics is Jesus on the cross and how he took the force of God’s “blow” and “protected” us.

Then I started thinking about “protection” and how the above seems to me to be a passive kind of protection. Passive with regard to the one being protected, that is. There is no notion of trying to change the one you are protecting. Even Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross was made without the precondition that we change. It was made whether we change or not. This, to me, is loving protection.

Active modes of protection would be trying to remove the “force” so there is no “blow” or trying to remove the person so the “blow” doesn’t hit her. Both of these modes attempt to alter the circumstances and are unaccepting of the way things are and so are, in many cases, futile because things are what they are.

Later in the song are these words:

Now I can’t change the way you think
But I can put my arms around you
That’s just part of the deal
That’s the way I feel
I put my arms around you

Here, again is a passive, accepting of the circumstances attitude. I’m not trying to change you, I’m just loving you as you are. Synchronistically, I started writing this post yesterday and read a post on Find and Ye Shall Seek today which talks about Christians not showing passive acceptance towards sinners. It’s a real shame that some who profess Jesus as Lord are so oblivious to how much their actions are so unlike the actions of Jesus.