I thought their “Magna Carta” that was distributed online in June 2009 was stronger than this book which came in its aftermath. Granted, they may have started with only that online document in mind and then been approached by Thomas Nelson Publishers with the book concept…but I just couldn't get excited about the book.

I think they were looking to identify the crucified and resurrected Jesus. But, maybe I missed something…

In the final analysis, it seems that Sweet and Viola want to challenge the people who are intent on praying and embodying the Lord's Prayer. It seems they want those people to give up that agenda and, instead, become modern-day, middle-class mystics who meet in suburban house churches, chanting to a disembodied Jesus while sipping coffee from Starbucks.

We can get the message sticky again if we would allow our imaginations to be renewed. If we could imagine new metaphors to communicate the stickiest message ever. This weekend I was speaking to a predominantly boomer crowd and I used the metaphor of the Fidelity green line to communicate eternal perspective. I used cones to create my own “green line” and had a blindfolded person walk through it with someone giving direction. Then I instructed the crowd to make noise during the second attempt to show how difficult it is to stay on the “way” in the world. It worked really well and people seemed to get it.

Would this have worked as well in a group of milllenials? Probably not. But in a group of people who are thinking about retirement it was highly effective. So creative use of our own culture's metaphors I think helps us stick the message.

What do you think?

I think you're on the right track by saying we can gain stickiness by creatively hooking into “the metaphors of this generation's context,” but I don't think our message is slippery because we're not good storytellers. The message we tell today is slippery, instead of sticky, because among other reasons:
1) it doesn't provoke tension in the hearer through legitimate engagement and/or dialogue with someone else's opposing viewpoint;
2) it lacks interaction and input from those present, so it's more of a monologue (which is why people are just fine attending “church” on an “internet campus”);
3) it isn't presented with an earnest conviction that matches that challenge and summons of Jesus, but instead is marginalized as saying nothing important.

These are just a couple of my thoughts. I'd love to keep the conversation going…

-Trevor
http://www.varsityfaith.com