On another note, you missed some great conversation at the cohort on Tuesday and we certainly missed having your voice in the mix. Looking forward to having you back with us next month.

First off, I'm glad you're alright Matt! The first thing I said to Jeanie when she logged into facebook when we got back last night was, “Could you check Matt Scott's profile? I want to make sure he didn't die while we were gone.” I'm glad to see you're still alive and kicking! lol

As for the idea of drawing lines, I'd rather not use that term since it's tied up with so many modern notions of Christian Legalism. In the sense that we think of that term, no, Jesus didn't draw lines. He wasn't interested in lines. But he was interested in Holiness. This is something that I think a lot of Christians today are taking less and less seriously. I believe the idea that God cares about our personal integrity is losing its relevance to today's young Christian. Jesus was a Jew who affirmed the Law (Matt. 5:17-20). Jesus was interested in blurring the lines that the Jewish scribes and polity had added to the Law, yes, but to suggest that Jesus simply wanted to obliterate the distinctions between believers and unbelievers is unwarranted. Jesus redefines what Holiness means.

It was Jesus who said that it would be those who do his will that will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, and others who do not will not enter. Our generation thinks in such pragmatic terms that I think we start to wonder what the point is of not cussing, or sexual purity, or affirming that Jesus is Savior and no other, or remaining sober, or whatever amounts to “lines” in many people's lines. But, first of all, I think it requires a whole epistemological shift in our thinking to understand things like this. Secondly, I don't think it's usefulness can be explained in empirical terms. It's something that has to be experienced. And we're generally not ok with that. Give me a specimen; something to hold and touch; let me see it with my eyes–you can't comprehend Holiness like that. I personally believe the crux of the debate over “lines” has more to do with the meaning of Holiness.

On another note, you missed some great conversation at the cohort on Tuesday and we certainly missed having your voice in the mix. Looking forward to having you back with us next month.

First off, I'm glad you're alright Matt! The first thing I said to Jeanie when she logged into facebook when we got back last night was, “Could you check Matt Scott's profile? I want to make sure he didn't die while we were gone.” I'm glad to see you're still alive and kicking! lol

As for the idea of drawing lines, I'd rather not use that term since it's tied up with so many modern notions of Christian Legalism. In the sense that we think of that term, no, Jesus didn't draw lines. He wasn't interested in lines. But he was interested in Holiness. This is something that I think a lot of Christians today are taking less and less seriously. I believe the idea that God cares about our personal integrity is losing its relevance to today's young Christian. Jesus was a Jew who affirmed the Law (Matt. 5:17-20). Jesus was interested in blurring the lines that the Jewish scribes and polity had added to the Law, yes, but to suggest that Jesus simply wanted to obliterate the distinctions between believers and unbelievers is unwarranted. Jesus redefines what Holiness means.

It was Jesus who said that it would be those who do his will that will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, and others who do not will not enter. Our generation thinks in such pragmatic terms that I think we start to wonder what the point is of not cussing, or sexual purity, or affirming that Jesus is Savior and no other, or remaining sober, or whatever amounts to “lines” in many people's lines. But, first of all, I think it requires a whole epistemological shift in our thinking to understand things like this. Secondly, I don't think it's usefulness can be explained in empirical terms. It's something that has to be experienced. And we're generally not ok with that. Give me a specimen; something to hold and touch; let me see it with my eyes–you can't comprehend Holiness like that. I personally believe the crux of the debate over “lines” has more to do with the meaning of Holiness.

I think that Jesus had plenty to say about inclusion and exclusion, about judging sin – and about accepting the repentant, too. He did indeed blur the lines people thought were clear, and point to a wholly different set of values than the legalistic ones his hearers tended to assume. We seem to need to re-learn those values in every generation.

My approach to such things tends to be a bit like my approach to absolute truth: I'm inclined to think that there are indeed absolutes, but that we in all our brokenness can never grasp the whole of it. So we need to approach such questions with humility and grace – more concerned for people's health and wholeness than for doctrinal purity. But that can't preclude there being lines, and knowing, at least sometimes, when they've been crossed

I appreciate your presence and your right to hold to your lines. There was a time when I held similar positions. But I find the Holy Spirit at work in a lot of people who don't buy into the idea of Lord. They would say they are following the Way of Jesus. They also find messages of Truth and love and grace in people and in writings outside of Christianity. I want to walk in the Way of Jesus so that people are drawn to a message of light and love that is transformational. But I don't find Jesus ever putting a line around what that transformation looks like.