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.

How (not) to speak of God

I can’t say enough good things about this book by Peter Rollins. I would argue it should get the “emerging church book of the year” award (if there was such an award). It really documents the hearts and minds of the emergent theological conversation. At least it captured mine. At times I wonder if the Emergent movement/conversation will end up becoming just a trend offering a new cosmetic face for conservative Evangelicalism, but this book is a stride in the right (errr... left) direction. It will keep the conversation grounded in critical thinking and followed by controversy. If you have any interest at all in philosophy/theology (I’m not sure you can really separate those two things) then you will want to read this book.

Most philosophy books are daunting and most philosophers are bad writers, but I can’t believe how readable this book really is. It packs an incredible amount of information into a small package without feeling like I was getting short changed. The ideas are well developed and wonderfully presented. Absolutely ZERO fluff here. I must have highlighted 40% of the text while reading it. The tie to emerging post-modern thought is clear in the title of the first chapter “'Rethinking Orthodoxy: From Right Belief to Believing in the Right Way”.

The first half of the book is philosophy/theology and the second half is a description of several alternative ritual/worship services that his small community (IKON) in Ireland has developed to play out their unique sense of orthopraxy. The communities tag line is “iconic apocalyptic heretical emerging failing”. That is interesting to say the least.

Rollins suggests a view of God "a/theism" which is both theistic and atheistic at the same time. It is a way of speaking and at the same time not being able to speak about God. This view understands God is real unlike the view of atheism and is also not concealed or “unknowable” as in agnosticism. For him, God is not absent or unknowable but is “hyper-present” which means we are bombarded with so much information about God (everything we experience and feel) that we can’t decipher it all or explain it other than through crude metaphors describing our experiences of God. The result of this overflow of data creates the appearance of absence or concealed presence but it is not really absent or concealed. I'm not sure yet if this is differnet than the PanENteistic view of God I've come to grips with lately, but it feels better for some reason.

My weak attempt at summarizing his thoughts here just makes me realize how great this book really is. (not) Speaking about God is a very difficult thing to try and do. He is impressive to have done it in a book that is getting such rave reviews by some important people (and not so important people like me). Read it! My review doesn’t do it justice. Also, if the word "philosophy" scares you then read it anyway. There is more to the book than philosophy. My guess is that this book will create philosphers and theologians out of some people that had not put much thought into the subjects.