Customer Reviews

How (Not) to Speak of God

5 star:		(16)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

One of the problems with a book like this is that you wonder if it will ever be read by anyone outside the community it describes. Rollins is attempting to describe the philosophical underpinnings of the "emerging church" or the conversation that is taking place around the world about how to approach the Christian faith in a post-modern era.

To do this he brings the work of deconstructionist theory, and the history of Christian mysticism, to theology and faith. In doing so he tries to avoid the dichotomy of fundamentalist faith on the one had and relativistic nihilism on the other. He wants to challenge and re-imagine the Christian faith without abandoning its core meaning.

This is not an easy task. I have a feeling that a great many more traditional Christians will be turned off by 1) what they will perceive as a threat to orthodoxy; and 2) by its language rooted in post-modern criticism and theory.

But I would recommend that this book be read in the spirit in which is written. Instead of viewing it as a threat to orthodox Christianity, view it as a challenge and a source of potential insight. Rollins certainly challenges traditional ways of thinking about theology and faith.

His deconstructionist approach to knowledge and truth will feel awkward and potentially heretical to most Christians, and it isn't always easy to sift through the language, but there are a number of keen insights for those who put in the effort.

"How (Not) to Speak of God" is one of the most thought-provoking and hope-filled books I've ever read. I know I will read this book over and over. Ever since reading it, the content of this book has been transforming me in so many ways. The book is divided into two parts. The first part is the theoretical portion of the book and basically proposes a new way of believing. Speaking as a practitioner and philosopher within the "emerging church," Rollins proposes that this revolution occurring within the Church is not a revolution of WHAT we believe but instead HOW we believe. The second part of the book, which by itself would have been worth the price of the book, is a description of ten different services, Rollins calls them "theodramas," from Rollins' faith community in Belfast, which is called IKON. These ten services help to bring the first half of the book into the practical expression of a faith community.

In short, this book spurred my imagination to picture a Christianity for tomorrow's world. And the picture Rollins presents is one that brings me great hope.

i don't say this lightly: this is one of the best books i've read on the emerging church (and i've read my share). i was blown away by pete's ability to explain things in both ways both articulate and not sounding like a ticked-off child of evangelicalism, yearning for a break from his past. i admit, a good chunk of what has been written in the emerging church world has that ring to it -- and this doesn't. some of that, i'm guessing, is pete's non-american-ness. and some of it, i'm guessing, is his credible academic chops. when another emerging church writer wrote we're heretics, it comes across like a emerging church version of a "god hates fags" poster -- confrontational and positioning. but when pete articulates it, the words are hopeful and honest.

since others have described the book in detail, i'll not do so here. just shortly: the first half is a philosophical/theological treatise proposing nothing short of a new christian worldview. it's not new liberalism (as some call the emerging church). how can a deep love of the divine jesus and the power of god's word in scripture be called new liberalism -- those (and other things) were the very things classical liberalism was working to debunk. then, the second half of the book walks through ten or so liturgies from the community pete helps lead in belfast (ikon). i'd known this was the layout prior to reading the book, and thought the second half might be a cop-out, filler, or just too weird. it's anything but. it's the practical outplay of the first half of the book, as rendered by one particular gathering of believers (albiet, a group that meets in a bar in belfast). the second half of the book puts flesh on the first half.

pete's writing is right at the threshold of my understanding at times -- his brain is clearly more trained and his bookshelves weightier than mine. but i could hold on, and i'm glad i did. i'll be recommending this book over and over and over again, i'm sure.

I totally get it. I just disagree.

The whole of Rollin's book amounts to this: When it comes to understanding theology, "a/theology", (his term), truth (big or little "t"), giving, love, salvation, orthodoxy, praxis, etc, don't believe them, believe me. I because of my proper understanding of Derrida, Neitzche, Foucault and other deconstructionists can now uplift the rest of you poor modernists. God is so oblivious as to who we, part of His creation, are as humans and what our limitations may be that he is incapable of breaking into our world through revelation and transcending all our cultural baggage so that we may, even in part, come to know Him in any way that is either meaningful or language independent. Big claim, eh?
As much as post-moderns/emergents cry foul when it comes to apologetics or truth claims, they have their very own apologetic, as is evidenced by this book, as it meticulously lays out why its view is (drum roll) meaningful. At one point in the book, Rollins states why his views reject relativism. That being, that as a statement, relativism devours itself because the proposition "relativism is true" would make it an absolute statement. But then he refuses to go the extra mile (or 2 or 3) and apply the same criteria to his own philosophy, post-modernism, to see how it also refutes itself. The book is full of contradictions, false dichotomies, and straw men but I still think one should read it and here's why.
Is everything that post-modernism teaches, or everything coming out of the emerging (emergent) conversation without value? Absolutely not. (Sorry for the absolute statement you pomo's.) Rollins and other emerging authors have done the church-at-large a tremendous service by pointing out grave wrongheadedness and blind spots within the church. It also does, I think provide on some level and in some areas possibilities to engage one's faith more deeply. I also do like how the examples of emerging worship from Rollins own church wrestle with themes that most churches don't touch. Doubt for example (although as in many areas of postmodernism I think they take a good idea or theme and then go too far and extoll it as a virtue rather than just acknowledging it as a normal part of the human condition and then working through it). So it's for these reasons, and not simply for the purpose of refuting them that I suggest one should read this book. And besides, conversation is a great thing.
Regarding all the authors of books out there in the emerging conversation and the philosophy espoused therein, I think Rollins' goes deeper, stays down longer, but ultimately comes up murkier.

There are a lot of books that belong to the emergent conversation (even if they claim not to). Books raising questions and awakening a new type of christianity. But just a few (and I mean a few) get to the bottom of things. Wrestling without fear with theology, just as those men in the Bible would with God.

If you would like to read a book that tackles the essence (magically grasped, because something that is alive is constantly changing) of the emergent theology, this would be the one. It's not an easy read but it is short. My advise would be this:

This book is like an adventure. You might start being afraid in the middle of it. But don't run back, run forward! You will find that safety is not where you came from but where you are going to.

Peter Rollins has written an eminently readable, at times entertaining book on Christian spirituality (I'm not sure that he would be comfortable with the generic label of 'theology', for reasons that will become clear if you read How [Not] to Speak of God). The book is divided into two halves. The first lays out the theoretical framework of the emerging 'conversation' that Rollins and his fellow religious seekers are a part of. The second outlines ten worship services held by Rollins' Ikon group in Belfast. Before the description of each service is a 1 to 2 page synopsis of the theoretical background of the service's theme. These services are, in places, quite moving, and, despite all their irreverent dramatics (e.g., they are held in a bar, one involves the burning of religious pictures, etc.), I think they will appeal to a wide range of believers because they are, cosmetics aside, very traditional in their theological/religious message.

There are, however, some serious faults to be found in the theoretical chapters. The biggest, for me, is Rollins' reluctance to make exclusionary, normative statements. For instance, he argues that Scripture is properly approached through the interpretative lens of love. In the same vein, the details of what one believes are less important than the fact that one is able to hold those beliefs in a loving manner, which encourages one's love for God and the world. Rollins believes that by nominating love as the criterion of discernment of proper faith he has both headed off the charge of relativism and left his system open to a competition of beliefs and ideas that can guard against the idolatry of neat and inflexible dogma.

Rollins is right (and he is only one in a long line of thinkers who have made the point, as he acknowledges) that our representations of God are never adequate, and can become idolatrous when affirmed too confidently. And he may very well be right (though I won't be the one to make that call) that love is the way to go when interpreting Scripture or discerning true faith. But the book is seriously hampered by his failure to develop a robust phenomenology of love that addresses not only love's structure (which Rollins addresses to some extent through his consideration of thinkers like Derrida and Marion, and faith in the context of Good Saturday), but its content. Rollins only notes that the love he bases himself on cannot be confused with hate, but I cannot think of a description of or call to love which could not be construed by some group (who hold an antithetical, or at least competitive definition of love) as a description of or call to hate, violence, and oppression.

For instance, when a faith community moves to become more 'inclusive', by welcoming a previously disenfranchised group, there will be those within the group who feel that this move of 'love' ignores their beliefs and does violence to them. Love does not look like love to those who are discriminated against by it. Nor does the love of the newly disenfranchised for the group's previous instantiation look like love to those who were previously not welcome in the group.

The bottom line: I don't think Rollins does enough to define the love that is his criterion of discernment of what counts as 'believing in the right way'. The result is a relativism in which groups who experience each other's 'believing in and through love' as hate could simultaneously be understood as 'believing in the right way'. Defining love more fully would exclude some who couldn't sign on to the definition, but it would also make possible love's use as a delineating criterion opening up a field of real religious possibility in which diverse beliefs, concepts, and images coexist and work together to enrich and challenge believers.

If Rollins supplied love's missing content (and made a few other tweaks which I've omitted discussing here), I think this could be a very strong book that would simultaneously challenge believers to develop new and meaningful liturgical practices, and challenge the fundamentalism that Rollins finds so threatening (and which seems to be his motivation in writing).

"How (Not) to Speak of God" is a difficult, difficult read. It is dense, packed with theological terms old and new and intensely circuitous. But the points it makes are supremely important, ushering in a new era in thinking about Christianity. Peter Rollins, the author, effectively bridges the divide between Christianity and postmodern thought. His thesis, in essence, is that the two ways of thinking do not cancel each other out. Just because Christianity isn't universally true and can't be proved, doesn't mean it doesn't contain some level of truth and important meaning. In short, if we know we can know nothing conclusively about God, then even what we reject may in fact be true. What's important is that we not force, by authority or obligation, either the affirmation or denial of God. In fact, we do God injustice if we try to prove his reality or define him completely. What emerges out of this is Rollins' requirement that Christianity, or really any type of religion, be organic, uncertain and aware of doubt. But this Christianity is alive, fluid and authentic, in contrast to many forms of Christianity found today. It's an extremely complex and subtle argument, which I'm probably not doing nearly enough justice to here. But trust me: it's eye-opening and extremely significant. The services in the second half of the book are not as essential nor as impressive as the philosophy presented in the first half, but it is interesting to see how the ideas are played out in practice.

In his new book "How (Not) To Speak of God," Peter Rollins finally provides some much needed clarity for the emergent church. This book should be read by anyone looking to seriously engage with the church in a postmodern setting. In comparing the emergent church to those within modern settings, Rollins writes, "This is not a revolution that seeks to change what we believe, but rather one that sets about transforming the entire manner in which we hold our beliefs."

Rollins builds upon this idea for the rest of the first half of the book (the book is divided into two parts, with the first being theory and second being practice), relooking at such terms as orthodoxy, theology, atheism, truth, and idolatry, among others. The two most helpful parts of the book for me personally were the section on doubt as virtue and the section on orthodoxy as believing in the right way. Rollins shows a new way to hold beliefs and live out those beliefs within the church community.

The second half of the book shows how some of these concepts have played out within Rollins' own church setting. It is not as inspiring as the first half of the book, but provides an interesting look at church done in a completely different way.

This has been one of the more helpful books that i have read in a long time, and i really hope that it catches on with a mass audience.

I will let the author himself speak. Here's one of the many luminous insights to be found in this truly ground-breaking book:

"The emerging [Christian] thought is a self-acknowledged form of heresy insomuch as it is aware of its failure to describe that of which it speaks. This recognition acts as an effective theological response to fundamentalism, as it unsettles the dark heart of its self-certain power. Very briefly, fundamentalism can be understood as a particular way of believing one's beliefs rather than referring to the actual content of one's beliefs.

"It can be described as holding a belief system is such a way that it mutually excludes all other systems, rejecting other views in direct proportion to how much they differ from one's own. In contrast, the a/theistic approach can be seen as a form of desbelieving what one believes, or rather, believing IN God while remaing dubious concerning what one believes ABOUT God (a distinction that fundamentalism is unable to maintain). This does not actually contradict the idea of orthodoxy but rather allow us to understand it in a new light...

"This a/theism is not then some temporary place of uncertainty on the way to spiritual maturity, bur rather is something that operates within faith as a type of heat-inducing friction that prevents our liquid images of the divine from cooling and solidying into idolatrous form."

Peter is a true pioneer/trail-blazer; he confirms that our vague and half-formed stammerings are not only acceptable, they are the only way that we can ever speak of Truth.

Peter Robbins brilliantly shows how we must embrace uncertainty in our beliefs, and how we can believe in God and yet reject what doctrine would make of God. While not as funny or relaxed as Rollins is in person, this book gives hope to those who feel that their doubts are an impediment to religious belief.