Comments on: Book Review: Common Grounds by Ben Young and Glenn Lucke

By: Halo

Halo — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 19:38:13 +0000

calendarios de la taina fallen footwear santaria onomatopoeia poems dfas mypay vinyl siding colors rapper ti high potassium levels live gold prices nurse practitioner salary

By: online cialis

online cialis — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 02:22:56 +0000

online cialis [url=http://www.hspp.ucla.edu/phorum/read.php?1,239]online cialis[/url] discount viagra [url=http://www.hspp.ucla.edu/phorum/read.php?1,238]discount viagra[/url] viagra for sale [url=http://www.hspp.ucla.edu/phorum/read.php?1,240]viagra for sale[/url] buy generic viagra [url=http://www.hspp.ucla.edu/phorum/read.php?1,236]buy generic viagra[/url] cialis soft tabs [url=http://www.hspp.ucla.edu/phorum/read.php?1,237]cialis soft tabs[/url] 6li9uis8gwirvyq

By: sled dog

sled dog — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000

Years ago I chatted with Mike Stand (of CCM’s Altar Boys) at a youth conference. He was writing a song called, “I Dont Hear the Question” about how conversation between believers and non-believers had changed. Mike was noticing a societal shift, and decided to pen a song recognizing things were different. We talked about how we as leaders had better learn new ways to engage the culture with the Gospel.

(I beleive the main reason we are seeing such a change is that we have left the days of the patriarchal society, where young people had to wait for their time in the sun. Now, everyone seems to be on a fairly level playing field. And the truth is this: young people are much more technologically savvy, actual giving them an upperhand in today’s technological society.)

Our church recently started a men’s ministry, and it’s all about conversation. One young believer shared about just not getting the concept of the trinity. It just doesn’t make sense to him. Old school thinking would have been to get his ducks in a row, and the quicker the better. But if we did that, I know he would have been frustrated, most likely feeling as if he would be forced to subscribe to something, not because of conviction, but because of outside pressure. Instead, I just let him share his concerns, and asked the other guys for input. We talked about scripture, logic, mystery, etc. Next week we’ll bat it around some more.

By: iMonk

iMonk — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000

Thanks for the high five

By: andy

andy — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000

Speaking as a twenty-something who was raised Evangelical (with heavy emphasis on Arminian thought), I’d like to point out that for many in my demographic, mystery is becoming more and more central.

What I mean by that is we often feel that we have to exchange deeper, more beautiful Truths that we don’t necessarily fully understand with simple, 3-point list axioms, or neat little theological abstractions.

Like the Trinity for instance. I understand that it’s God in three persons, the role of each of the Members, etc. – but I feel like that definition leaves so much out. How can I understand something that’s the very ground of not only my own being, but of ALL being? How can I understand the Infinite becoming finite? I supposed my point is that many people of my age group are not spiritually engaged by abstract theology.

And for whatever other value McLaren and co. might bring, I credit them with reawakening my spiritual imagination to see through dry abstractions. This book seems like it would do something similar.

The great fear of someone my age is some beautiful Truth I’ve experienced will be cheapened and devalued by a dogmatic theological pronouncement, and that it will feel as though something precious between God and me will have been stolen to favour a neat and tidy set of doctrine.

Is this an irrational fear? Probably. But it’s very real nonetheless.

andy

By: Glenn

Glenn — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000

Andy,
Your concerns are real for me, too. One of the characters in the book, Brad, is dried up in his faith. He’s a lifelong Southern Baptist, a kick butt investment banker, but the reality of a walk with Jesus is disappearing. Yet, all Brad knows is 5 steps, 10 points, 3 secrets, how to this, formulae that.

Professor MacGregor kindly but unswervingly addresses this in Brad and when Brad reacts angrily (fearfully?), MacGregor points him to mystery. Still Brad rebels– this is not the tried and true, cut and dried way he has learned. So MacGregor asks, “How’s it working for you?” Gently he probes until Brad’s emptiness is exposed and he admits to missing God.

By: iMonk

iMonk — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000

The best part of the book right there.

By: sled dog

sled dog — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000

All day long I wondered why the Monk put an winky face by his “high five’ comment. I finally got it. Yeah, sometimes I’m slower than frozen molasses…

By: Richard Sharp

Richard Sharp — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000

After a long search using google, dictionary.com, Websters and Encyclopedia Britannica I can find no explanation of the term Oprahesque as in ‘their “Oprahesque” view of God’. I am english but have lived in Germany for the last 25 years and have therefore missed the introduction of this word, that everybody else seems to understand. I have some innate feeling as to what the term might mean, and that probably a lot of people I know have this view of God. But what exactly is meant by an “Oprahesque” view of God?

By: andy

andy — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000

I believe the use of “Oprahesque” refers to God being like the popular but shallow talk-show host “Oprah”. An Oprah-God would offer fluffy, feel-good, self-help. And She would never get her hands dirty (or do something as shameful as die on a cross). And She would command a media empire with more power than most of the third world. HER rabid followers would surely rise up and fight against anyone who came to execute her!

An interesting thought: there might be some parallels between Oprah’s crazy middle-aged house-wife fans and some of God’s crazier fans…