An Introduction to the Introduction

Gentlemen:
Before I launch into a fury of rhetoric and teeth, I want to lay out the two reasons that I've wanted to read this book with all of you ("y'all" in my recently native Florida).
A recent conversation with the SanDee-ay-gan Luke helped me to clarify the two motivating factors for our endeavor (albeit a broad "two"). Bear with my explanation--
We talked about perspectives, about growing up in the surburbian Midwest, and about the effects our upbringing had on our View-of-the-World.
(I hate the word "worldview." Sorry.)
Mr. Burger talked about how he gets frustrated by the complexity of the world, by the immensity of what's going on, and I readily agreed. All areas of the world are moving, all the time. Politics, Theology, Wall Street, International Relations. And we, being a part of the world, are participants in directing it. It comes to this: How do we know we're right in how we direct the world? (read: Do not hear "How do we prove to others that we're right?"--that's different.) The operative is: How do WE...KNOW?
This question, applied to politics and economics, is the first underlying reason for my reading of the book.
Now, to the various oversights in what has been said thus far: my primary question is an oversimplified and Evangelical-like conglomeration of more accurate questions.

Who are we? (What entity do we belong to?--This may differ for each of us.)
What are the issues? (What is disagreed about?)
What do we think about the issues? (What is our position?)
Who disagrees with us?
What makes us think what we think? (How did we get our position?)
What makes them think what they think? (How did they get theirs?)

Now, in an ideal world, we answer these last two questions and track the processes by which we arrived at them; most convincing path wins. In the real world, the ideal world is bunk. In the real world, we bicker and get confused about what both camps think and why.
So, seeing as we're a part of the real world, I think we should aim for understanding, not convincing. If we can do that, perhaps we will find that the conversation will better enable us to "direct" the world more wisely. And if so, perhaps we will find that we are more confident to join in the directing.

The second reason I wanted to read this grounded our conversation into the theological construct that Luke and I, for the most part, share. Luke retained one foundational bedrock in the face of the multiplicity of the goings-on of the world. He said (this is a mostly mis-remembered quote), "Luke, it just seems like all I know, all I really know, is the love of Christ for me, and that I need to share that with others. Whatever helps me do that, I want." I'm not sure what we arena of life we were talking about at that point, but he continued, saying, essentially--the better I know people, the better I can show the love of Christ to them. Whatever I can learn about people I can use, because when I understand them, I can show them love.

First of all, I very much appreciated Luke's position; I think it is a healthy one that many of the Evangelical fold never get to. We are much more inclined to baptize our opinions on all areas of life because we are Christians, and we believe, unswervingly, that Christianity is true. Our theological convictions bleed into everything else. Our theological certainty translates to a certainty in Politics and Economics which, at it's worst, dictates how we view people, and how we interact (or don't) with them. Here, I think of the disdain for "those liberals" I saw and shared in church.
I suppose we are just used to being right...

As part of the church, specifically the Evangelical one, we exist within a body that has lots of opinions on all the areas of world-motion. Most of these opinions we've marked with our Infallibility Stamp and, thus, put them outside the realm of conversation.
I hate Infallibility Stamps and try to restrict my usage of them to Colts football. My parents, and most people I know over the age of 35, are much more apt to stamp things. Politics and Economics are two areas that we often find double-stamped. Christians occupy different camps, and often, both sides retain the Oh-no-if-I'm-wrong-about-this-then-what-about-Jesus-? position. Here, it gets hairy.

The point I want to get back to is Luke's foundation. In comparison to a bulky, Glenn Martin-esque (no disrespect intended) Worldview, Luke's foundation is a simple one--a skinny one. In epistemological terms, it relies mainly on an experience of an existential, theological point. This is not to say it won't influence his view of all the many "world happenings", but it doesn't come with them prepackaged into the deal. (Forgive me Luke if I'm reading myself into your position.) In any case, he starts with Jesus' love for him and for others. For the time being, he also seems to end there.
So after a ridiculously long-winded build-up, this is my second point: I will be looking at the book (and the paradigm it represents) through the theological, existential gauge that Luke spoke of. I hope that I use this book to come to a solid conviction in politics and economics, one that compliments but doesn't dictate my "skinny" foundation.

I hope our reading and discussion will allow me to think more clearly and carefully about how I "direct" the world as I get older and become more involved in the directing.

I hope some of this made sense. Please, feel free to deconstruct. (And sorry it took me so long, Nate. The power was out all weekend.)