Peter Rollins - Heretical Orthodoxy

Well the last little while I have been writing a bit on idol. This tangent is largely due to Peter Rollins. In "How (Not) to Speak of God" this is a theme. So I thought I'd due some sharing on this book. I will do my best to share my thoughts and beliefs using Rollins.

Well, in the introduction Brian McLaren calls the book one of the best theology books he has read in the past 10 years and Rollins story telling 'compares' to Jesus' parable. I must admit such a claim made me a bit skeptical, but I must say McLaren' praise is very accurate. Rollins slits he small masterpiece into two section the first called Heretical Orthodoxy: From Right Belief to Believing in the Right Way.

I think over the last year with the help of Karl Barth, I believe that God is utterly transcendent. This is one of the premises of Rollins, to remember when we talk about God that we talk about our understanding of God, not God. I think this is sort of of obvious, but I think in discussion this is easily forgotten that we can never talk about attributes of God as they are, because any language can not grasp God. For me a good reminder is intellectual idolatry, often wars or division were started due to understanding of God. I feel how we understand God when designated as divine attributes of God are idols, we can hold to our understanding of God but once we assume our words equal God we are on a slippery slope. I encounter this kind of thinking often in modern evangelism/apologetics. While I am sure these forms of communicating the good news were useful at one point in time, however this time is long over. I am convinced all they are attempting to so is to convert people to a system of beliefs, this is not convincing and not the reason I am still a Christian.

One of the interesting things is how traditional methods of conversion conveyed that after saying a pray one is a christian Rollins believes we should recognize that Christianity involves a process of journeying and becoming. I think this is correct, but also requires many to reevaluate our words. I personally think definitive words create problems for Christians. We talk about what my friend Bryan calls 'Christian Myths' that everything will be better once we say this prayer, i think the prayer is the beginning. Unfortunately like McLaren says evangelical race to the start line of the Christian life. I reject these kind of binary notions of faith. I think it makes things nice and neat, but life is messy.

I think it is funny when people in my class talk about God in a singular view and other ways of God are heretical. I think we all view God, Jesus, and the Bible different due to our social upbringing. Can we recognize that a North American understanding of God will inevitably be different than a South American view, I think this is obvious, but we tend to forget what we bring to life and a text.

I've talked a lot about idol, but what exactly do I mean by this loaded word. "Like aesthetic idol (such as the Golden calf in the book of Exodus), the conceptual idol refers to any system of thought which the individual or community takes to be a visible rendering of God. The only significant difference between the aesthetic idola dn the conceptual idol lies in the fact that the former reduces God to a physical object while the latter reduces God to an intellectual object. Does 'holiness' not have strong connotations of a God who is beyond all finding out.

It is my experience that my understanding of God is constantly changing, consewualty we do not do theology but are rather overcome and transorbed by it: we do not master it but are mastered by it. Augustine encourages us to bear in mind that God transcends all terms and escapes every conceptualization --even that of being beyond conceptualization. I think God is changing my view of everything. Recently in a class my prof said those of us who identify with the emerging movement are being prepped for some work that God has in store for us, I find that reassuring as I am sure many of these thoughts may seem pointless, but for me I need the mystery, answers do not provide my hunger.

Recently, the senior pastor at my church has been talking about how doubts are from the evil one. I wonder what would have happened if Martin Luther that his doubts about church were view as from the evil one. Rollins believes doubts should be understood as a virtue. In contrast to the modern view that religious doubt is something to reject, fear, or merely tolerate, doubt not only can be seen as an inevitable aspect of our humanity but also can be celebrated as a vital part of faith.

One of my big problems with modern expressions of Christianity is apologetics. I must say for many years, I wonder what these people really thought they were accomplishing, but I must say all I think they are attempting is to convince people of a system of beliefs, which is a false assumption. I don't think people follow Jesus because he is convincing, but because encounter the living God not a logical reason, how reasonable is it deny our self and pick up our cross. I think in our postmodern age apologetics is falling away for the much better belief that the community is our apologetics. One of the primary reasons is that apologetics is a form of 'power discourse', which I find to dehumanizing. Rollins talks about 'Iconic God talk', I am a firm believer in this. 'To treat something as an icon is to view particular words, images, or experiences as aids in contemplation of that which cannot be reduced to words, images or experiences. Not only this, but the icon represents place where God touches humanity.' God stands outside our language regimes and cannot be colonized via any power discourse. This emphasis embraces the mystery and complexity of life. Life is not neat , but mysterious and beautiful. 'God is not revealed via our words but rather via the life of the transformed individual', hence community is apologetics.

During postmodernism one of the main idols of modern evangelical Christianity Truth has been attacked. I have often found this debate peculiar, not sure what the need to hold on to this tenet in much an emotional way. Rollins say 'the judeo-christina view of truth is converned with having a relationship with the Real(God) that results in us transforming reality. The emphasis is thus not ondescriptions but on transformation. This perspective completely short-circuits the long-redundant debate as to whether turh is subjective or objective, for here Truth is the ungraspable Real (objective) that transforms the individual (subjective). I don't think Truth can described, but it can be experienced. I know many are weary of 'experience' of God, but i don't know how else to state it I do not conceptualize God, I encounter and experience God when I attend St. Benedict's Table.

'In the Epistle of John, he equates the existence of religious knowledge with the act of love. Knowledge of God (the Truth) as a set of propositions is utterly absent; instrad he claims that those who exhibit a genuine love know God, regardless of their religious system, while those who do not love cannot know God, again regardless of their religious system. Truth is thus understood as a soteriologyical event. This word 'soteriological' is derived from the term soteria, from which we get the word 'salvation'. In precise terms the word refers to a cure, remedy or helaing.' Love is a tricky word, mostly because it has been raped by pop-songs and hallmark cards, that any time one uses this word one is skeptical of the sincerity of the words. But it is obvious that love is central to being a follower of Jesus, so what do we do? I think we need to understand love very broad. During the 80's forms of friendship evangelism emerged as a new way to 'win those for Christ.' The problem with this form of evangelism is that people befriend people of the motive to 'convert' them. This naturally has an agenda, can sacred love have an agenda? I don't think it can when we add a 'should' to love it becomes something other than love. I think any form of evangelical tool is worthless, without growing into being deeper followers of Christ. Maybe it is the easy answers we are after to share our faith, but somehow this isn't possible. One who love all(do not read tolerate all) shows God, by living out our life as Eucharistic people being broken in the world.
I think we can go into the world and be broken, without the need to convince others we are right.