There’s been a nice long conversation going on in the comments down here. It started as an attempt to find out whether or not (or how) we were supposed to “be like Jesus.” Of course, as lengthy conversations are wont to do, it’s now touching on a bunch of topics including: identity, community, and free will.

There’s some really good stuff down there, including this insightful quote from Lindell, who, as I have said before, is friggin’ brilliant.

But God also needs space to be God. He needs to be able to express himself and he needs us to support him as he lives out his own potential. Or in Christianese, God needs humanity to support his kingdom activity in creation. He needs us to proclaim his worth and identity to the world.

I love the verbalization here of something I’ve struggled to understand for a long, long time, namely What exactly is the point of all the God-and-human interaction? Well, how about this…how about the reality that God needs us to support his on-going partnership (covenant) with his creation, which involves kingdom building? Right now, some of you are thinking, “What the heck does that even mean, ‘bringing about aspects of his kingdom.” (The other day TJ told me she was speaking at a youth conference on “freedom in Christ.” I felt like I had to rub my temples and think “Freedom in Christ, freedom in Christ….I know I know what that means.” How fast our Christianese slips away from us!) Anyhow, what I mean by all this kingdom stuff has really been ever-so-nicely translated and package for us by the French Bohemians in the 1890’s. (We are all, after all truth seekers, and it’s hubris and pride for anyone to say they are the only ones who have a bead on truth. I’ll take truth anywhere I can find it…even at the Moulin Rouge.)

These Parisians were seeking to celebrate the Bohemian ideal:

God needs space to bring these things into fruition. We get to “hold space” (see Jen Lemen) in this world for that to happen. And you know what? I think that’s what Jesus did. For him, in his path, in his circumstances, in his culture, that meant a bloody sacrifice. That was the language the people of the day could understand. That was how he had to be the midwife to the ongoing process of creation. And yes, I think following God does at times require us to do unselfish things, which can feel like sacrifice. But that does not necessarily require a denial of self or an abolishment of the individual self. Rather, if we are moving towards the Bohemian/Kingdom ideal — if we are doing that which brings about truth, beauty, freedom, and above all things, love — then is that even really sacrifice? Or is that just being what we are created to be? (and therefore being ever more true versions of ourselves?) Doing what Jesus did doesn’t necessarily mean doing exactly what Jesus did, but doing what we see the Father doing…aligning ourselves with the on-going process of creating creation; forming the world; unfurling the future in the wholeness-seeking manner that God kicked off in the garden. These muddle of thoughts are why I don’t know if I agree with what Nick said when he wrote: “We are supposed to be sacrifices, in this culture, worldview, families, our daily lives, even our own individuality. So, how does all this relate to our daily lives in a practical way? Two things-Love God, Love others.” (Although I may not agree with Nick, I want to say that I very much appreciate his journey through this thought process — it’s the journey that matters.) But I do think that last bit is on the right track—above all things love. But does living out the reality of love necessarily mean sacrificing all that makes us who we are: ourselves, our families, our worldviews? I don’t think so. I think what it means is that when we step into love; when we find ourselves in the story that is love; we become what we are created to be: creatures who love and are loved, creatures who leave behind that which is not-love, creatures who turn and mimic the actions of their creator-parent as we also begin to create things which bear truth, beauty, freedom, and love. This sort of living requires, not the question WWJD, but the question Who would God have me to be? Ultimately, that is what Jesus did–not just on the cross, but throughout his whole life. He was shaped not by what his family, or society, or even his religious order required him to be…but by what God created him to be. He was the ultimate individual. And he exhibited the ultimate love. Yet despite his individuality, he impacted the ultimate community – a community worldwide and time transcendent. I think Josh has totally nailed something by saying Christianity today is not too individual but too selfish. It’s too much about what I want and need and not enough about my God, my friend.

What did Jesus do? He lived out the ultimate example of being aligned with God. He did so so flawlessly that he was completely integrated with who he was created to be–the perfect example of wholeness, the embodiment of the Bohemian ideal. Not a pawn to be sacrificed then, but the ultimate example of someone living in perfect alignment with who they were individually created to be. What if we offered that up to people, the whole picture of Christ, not just a corpse on a cross?

Damn. That blows my mind. I’ll have to chew on that awhile.