The Biblical wHole

As Christians, we live with a sacred text that is fractured by time, culture, and language. We have to struggle with the tension between the Bible's humanity and its powerful ability to transcend time and space. Peter Rollins has taken a healthy approach to scripture in his new book “The fidelity of betrayal”. He succeeds in moving past the modern wars of inerrancy by facing the tension head on and celebrating the process of wrestling with this tension.

Whenever we fist come to the text as religious readers, we all too often approach it in a naive manner that interprets the various scientific, geographical, historical, and metaphysical claims as constituting the truth of the text. Then, as these claims become increasingly difficult to hold uncritically, we often enter into a stage in which we question such assumptions and become interested in the various academic debates. However, it would be a mistake to think that this is the last word, for it is possible to take a further step by re-engaging with a naive reading, but one that does not turn its back on critical thinking. Instead, this return to naiveté allows the individual temporarily to suspend such academic debates so as to open up a deeper mode of engagement with the text itself.

The point of the second naiveté is not to reach a position where one rejects academic debates but rather to provide a space in which readers can place these ongoing debates to one side so that they can attend to the transforming source of the text itself. It is this transforming source that we speak of when we speak of the Word of God. (p. 46)

I was first struck by this need for a “both/and” approach to scripture the first time I heard Walter Brueggemann speak. It was evident in his ability to dissect the author's intentions and then easily move back into the story and speak from the vantage point of the characters. I think that is the source of tension we face. Literalists are only concerned with the words of the characters - the actual dialog, scenes, and events as if the only reason for the text is to convince a modern reader that these ancient events "really" happened. On the other hand, biblical experts are quick to point to the motive of the human author and consider what the text can tell us about the particular community that produced the story and the reasons they chose its specific symbolism. God is found in the act of reconciling that tension between the story and reality – between a character and its author. God is alive in the experience that inspired the story and also in the reader's experience of unpacking the story.

The text was written not to be approached as an academic document detailing facts about the life of faith but rather as an invitation into the life of faith. Hence, if we lose ourselves in a sea of discussions concerning the conflicts themselves we will fail to attend to the reality that the writers hint at as lying behind, beneath, and within the conflicts: the one we call God. (p. 47)

A Call To Betrayal

I've met so many Christians who feel the primary task of Christianity is the call to preserve our religion even if Jesus' message gets lost in the mix. I can sympathize with their emotional reaction, but the result is a type of faith that feels more like a competition for dominance than a call to sacrifice. I don't know if this was the product of a religion birthed in a pluralistic society fighting for survival, the spirit of protestant reformation gone wild, or a byproduct of the modern individualistic fixation on winning at all costs. I've heard people go so far as to suggest that the very words of Jesus are "bad advice" if not packaged up with the branding of Christian symbols, language, and stories. Some part of that doesn't sit right with me. I guess there is a reason that Madison Avenue marketing firms focus so heavily on the concept of brand loyalty. We seem to take the bait.

The cost of Christianity, for so many, is thought to lie in the demand that we die to ourselves for the sake of our Christianity. The cross we are called to carry is thus one upon which we are to be put to death. But what if this cross we bear had another meaning? What if the Cross that we are called to carry is not for us at all but rather, like the cross that Simon of Cyrene labored beneath, is really for another - a cross for us to crucify what we love? Is it possible that the cross we labor beneath must be used to crucify our Christianity? How many of us can really know what it is like to destroy what we love for the sake of what we love - to be the most faithful of betrayers? Yet perhaps it is precisely this that we are being called to: engaging in that most difficult task of putting our religion to death so that a religion without religion can spring forth. - Peter Rollins, "Fidelity Of Betrayal" (p.24)

Is it possible that the worst thing that ever happened to Christianity is when it won? At some point the subversive anti-imperial message of Jesus became the dominant religion of the empire. Something had to give. Either the empire had to become like Christ or Christianity had to become like the empire. The empire won the first battle and Christians came along for the ride because the name of Christ was more important to them than the values of Jesus. What if Christians had been willing to betray that which they loved most - then very name of Christ? If the empire steals the brand, then shouldn't our fidelity to Jesus demand our betrayal of his name?

The Fidelity of Betrayal

I am a big fan of Peter Rollins. His latest book, “The Fidelity of Betrayal: Towards a Church Beyond Belief”, is a treat. Rollins accomplishes something rare. He brings the deep philosophical discussions of the last few centuries down to the layman’s level without reducing them to meaningless dribble. Usually when someone attempts to summarize the work of the world’s greatest philosophers in a nutshell, it ends up about as valuable as a nutshell. Rollins succeeds where most have failed because he recognizes that philosophy is more about questions rather than answers. Philosophy is a process of intellectual wrestling with ideas. Providing us easy answers would only rob the reader of the experience of the search. Regurgitating obscure philosophical riddles would simply make the book another in a long line of intellectually inaccessible attempts. This book strikes a perfect balance, or maybe I should say the perfect tension.

For too long, Christian theology has become more like the cheap reassurance of a placebo. A successful theologian, however, is someone who leads his readers into a few sleepless nights. I’ve had that feeling this weekend as I began reading this book. The real value of the book is not only what Rollins has to say, but the process you enter once you start reading. He’s shown that there is a serious connection between faith and doubt, fidelity and betrayal. Maybe intellectual wrestling and sleepless nights isn't for everyone, but I'm thrilled by it. For me, a new question is like a present under the Christmas tree.

Rollins has this to say about postmodern Christianity…

As this structure is revealed, I argue that the consequences are twofold. First, we are led to embrace the idea of Christianity as a religion without religion, that is, as a tradition that is always prepared to wrestle with itself, disagree with itself, and betray itself. Second, this requires a way of structuring religious collectives that operate at a deeper level than the mere affirmation of shared doctrines, creeds, and convictions. It involves the formation of dynamic life-affirming collectives that operate, quite literally, beyond belief.

Christians have grown leery of philosophy and I assume that is why theology has become less philosophical and more systematic. We too easily forget that it was the questions of Plato and Aristotle that caused Augustine and Aquinas to wrestle their way into the development of traditional orthodoxy. By engaging with Descartes, Nietzsche, and Derrida, Peter Rollins has done something wonderful for Christians. He’s asked us to think. Theology is like having a conversation with the history of our faith. Peter Rollins has asked us to wrestle with the tension about God and the Bible in the way the fathers of our faith had once done. He then asks us to take the next step and enter into conversation with the philosophers of our time. I'll be posting more as I finish up the book this week.

Stopping the Spin!

The biggest reason our political system makes little progress is that most people run around armed with empty rhetoric and artificial facts. Thank you Chris Matthews for not letting this idiot get by with it. The real enemy in our political conversation and our current foreign policy is PRIDE. For many people, it is more important to avoid admitting their own mistakes rather than having honest communication and solving a problem. I'm tired of people spinning their way out of a jam.


Talking is not appeasement.

I Am Evolution

I found this great story about paleoanthropologist Holly Dunsworth's interaction with evolution.

The intersection of faith and reason is tangled up by the inadequacies of language. Somewhere along the line, fundamentalist strains of religion became more concerned with defining belief ("pistos" in Greek) as our ability to claim intellectual certainty about one or more facts that can't be proven. The more unreasonable the claim, the more "faith points" they get. Lost in that translation are the concepts of fidelity, hope, and devotion. Those values were once a primary part of the definition. In the fundamentalist reaction to modern science, those values are often sent to the back of the line behind certainty in doctrines and their ability to suspend reason.

Sometimes it takes an outside view to show you where you are wrong. Holly has a healthy set of beliefs about evolution. She is devoted, yet not enslaved to an imaginary fixed understanding. Faith and reason can coexist when we don't confuse the words certainty, trust, hope, fidelity, and devotion. Each is important, but each is very different. Deconstructing and untangling the language creates a more healthy discussion about faith. I can't imagine a divine being that rewards people for their ability to suspend reason and reject knowledge. In my understanding of God, our questions, skepticism, and devotion to the search for knowledge is not only rewarded, but those things are a part of the reward.

Moving Beyond The Religious Wars

This audio interview is wonderful! It is one of the best interviews I've heard expressing emerging Christianity. Bishop John Shelby Spong presents a way to move beyond the war between secular left and fundamentalist right. He gives us a postmodern option for Christianity to emerge beyond this modern battle.

The first half of the interview is a biographical sketch of his experience, the second half contains one of the most clear and concise explanations of emergent faith that I've ever heard. Don't miss out on this gem. Many people discount Bishop Spong based on a few surface level prejudices. Evangelicals are scared of him because he doesn't use their canned terminology, but they should listen. There is plenty of common ground and opportunity to move beyond the modern construct that forced our division. I think something wonderful is emerging in Christianity and his voice is an important part of the process.

I'm an Obama Girl!

Say it! Say it! Hillary, you know you want to say it.

In a flash of historic irony, the Clinton legacy may be solidified, not by a 3rd Clinton term, but by their faithful enthusiastic support of the first black American President. This is a potential story book ending. In some ways, it could be the best way to play out their story. So Hillary, just say it while you can still make a graceful exit and a powerful statement about American politics. Say it while it still means something. Shed a tear (you've almost done it before). Embrace your role as a person who helped the cause without claiming the spotlight. This is the moment you've been waiting for since you first heard Dr. King speak as a teenager. Not the moment your husband would be President, but the moment you would help reconcile race relations in America by supporting the most literal manifestation of Dr. King's dream. This is your calling. This is your brightest moment. Just say it out loud and let yourself be carried away! Hold his hand, walk with him out on the stage and say it. Give him your support, loan him your husband's political savvy. This is what your career has been all about. Join the team. We'll accept you. Just say it!

Making the Bible an Idol

I really appreciate and share John Piper's love of the Bible and I think that underneath his narrow polarizing language there is a valid criticism of "trendy faith". His ability to inspire emotion is amazing and takes me back to my early childhood experiences of faith. However, I wonder if Piper is suggesting that we become blind to the Christ that lives in the world today in many people, places and things. Do you think he is so caught up in the particular stories that opened his own eyes to the love of Christ, that he now discounts the many ways other people find Christ?



It seems to me that sharing culturally relevant stories that communicate the central meanings about God’s love and community is not only ok, it is an act of being true to Jesus by imitating his own love of symbolic parables. Why must we favor our own stories and myths over the universal meanings hidden within them?

"The best way to waste your pulpit is to preach your own thoughts, instead of preaching God's thoughts" - John Piper

Isn't this another way for a preacher to say...

"Don't think, just check your brains at the church door. Of course, I can think because my thoughts are really God's thoughts."

If Piper really believed what he said, then why does he preach? Wouldn't he just read scripture from the pulpit? What is he really suggesting here?

The Bible is a lens to understand how particular people experienced God. We can learn so much for its texts, but when we make it an idol, it feels like we lose sight of the living Christ that is at work in the world. Christ is present. I’m in complete support of Piper’s devotion to Christ, but we shouldn't have to limit Christ to the works and experiences of the past.

Operation Disgust

Rush Limbaugh is continuing his campaign to get more Republican voters to cross over and vote for Clinton in the primaries. Over 100,000 people switched to the democratic party in Ohio. I suspect that number will be much higher today in Indiana and North Carolina. We may never know the exact numbers, but I don't think you can ignore the impact of this tactic. I suspect the real motivation is the money Limbaugh would make if Clinton were elected. This is a way to hedge his bets. The Clinton years made Limbaugh's career a success. Another term would solidify his listeners.

Here is the quote from his site used to sell bumper stickers.

"Make your gas guzzler a rolling support vehicle for Operation Chaos! It's all part of Rush's effort to keep the Democrat Party in disarray. The sticker features the red, white and blue Operation Chaos logo. We used the national colors because Operation Chaos is patriotic!" - (taken from Rush Limbaugh's website)

The good news is that this type of partisanship is exactly what drives many voters to Obama.

Tax Holiday? Obama Wins This Debate

The issue of a summer Gas Tax holiday is proof positive that Obama is the only candidate who places America's best interests above his own political goals. Do we really need to feed the machine of consumerism with tax cuts on Gasoline? It is nothing more than another subsidy for the oil industry. I'm not sure Mickey Mouse really needs a hand out either. Borrowing more money from China so that families will have an extra $5 in their pockets when they get to his theme park is not a good investment. Is Obama the only candidate who thinks the government should keep its hands out of our business?



Gasoline is still cheaper than beer. Maybe we should cut the alchohol tax?