How (Not) to Speak of God

Here is the first of four engagements around Pete Rollins' How (Not) to Speak of God.  It is by Adele Sakler, who lives in Richmond, VA, and is pursuing Doctoral work in Theology & Philosophy at George Fox Seminary.  Adele can also be found at existential punk.

Download how_not_to_speak_of_god-sakler.pdf

---

Adele Sakler
5 October 2006

"How (Not) To Speak Of God" by Peter Rollins, SPCK, London, England, 2006.  The purpose of this piece is to enlighten readers to my interaction with this book. I am offering a summary, my observations, what I believe the author is attempting to communicate, my doubts and objections, and finally, an assessment of the book. My hope is that this will whet the reader's appetite and
that they will then read the book for themselves with an open mind.

On the back cover Jonny Bakers states "This book brings together Christian mysticism, postmodern philosophy, and the practices and liturgies of an alternative worship community trying to make sense of Christianity in a postmodern environment. The results are stunning - original, provocative, and creative." Rollins' book is divided between two parts: Part One is a philosophical and theological treatise of Rollins' thoughts and contributions to the emerging conversation from his academic days at Queens University in Belfast. Part Two contains this learned knowledge in praxis and experimentation in an emerging project Rollins found in Belfast called Ikon. As people read Rollins book for themselves, they need to remember Rollins' conclusion as "…the territory I thought I was helping to chart was actually discovered a long time ago by my ancestors. It is both frustrating and comforting that no matter how fast I run, those who have long since died have already arrived at where I am attempting to go." (Rollins, xv) This humility, in my opinion, helps the reader to more ably roll with the punches of some uncomfortable and "scary" ideas that will definitely push buttons and quite possibly cause some readers to be pushed to the edge.

Today more than ever, especially in the United States, there is a great polarization, whether in politics or religion, that is fighting tooth and nail to push an agenda. Especially in matters of faith for the Christian right there is a fight to keep absolutes at the forefront and a plot to squelch relativism. Chapter 1, God rid me of God, explores this theme. Rollins sees the emerging church moving beyond these polarities of absolutism and relativism as he views both of these extremes as idolatrous. (p. 2) The idea is to move away from our western way of seeing, viewing and being Christian and recapture our eastern, Hebraic roots.  Rollins, through his work in this book wants us to see "…the orthodox Christian as one who believes in the right way - that is, believing in a loving, sacrificial and Christlike [sic] manner." (Pp. 2-3) In other words, by believing in the right way versus having right beliefs, we can move beyond meaninglessness and relativism. For Rollins, relativism is "self-contradictory because to say there is no meaning in the universe is itself a meaningful statement." (p. 11)

In Chapter 2, The Aftermath of theology, Rollins discusses two different ways in which we approach religious tradition. One way is admitting God exists and acknowledging that we can be in a loving relationship with God yet recognizing our ability to fully grasp God is limited. In other words, "God cannot be reduced to our understanding of that relationship." (p.20) The second way in which we approach this religious tradition is by squeezing tightly onto our dogmatic belief systems and therefore, thinking we have God figured out. This form of boxing God in is a violent handling of God and brings about violence to God's children. This is "…a type of idolatrous relation in which we believe that our ideas actually represent the way that God and the world really operate." (p. 20-21) This is nothing more than Pharisaical pride that Jesus always spoke against. Instead of white knuckling the laws, we need to let go and allow God to overtake us and free us to be who God wants us to be. As people of God we "…must speak and yet we must maintain our silence, we must maintain distance amidst proximity of God, and we must worship while being careful not to make God into the object of our worship." (p. 30) God is not an object to be grasped but rather seduces and transforms us as evidenced in real living examples of transformed lives that have encountered God in authentic relationship insteadof lofty ideals.

Within Chapter 3, A/theology as icon and Chapter 4, Inhabiting the God-shaped hole, I see real arguments arising from USAmerican evangelical right wing Christians who view Christianity through modern lenses. There is much they would pick apart with their seasoned answers throughout the entire book, but my focus will remain within these two chapters. Rollins states that "This emerging a/theology can thus be described as a genuinely ecumenical device, for by unsettling and decentring [sic] any idea of a one true interpretation held by one group over and against all the others, a network of bridges is formed between different interpretative communities who acknowledge that we are all engaged in an interpretive process which can never do justice to the revelation itself." (p. 31) By reading this, these modern thinking Christians feel they have their point proven that postmodern thought is relativistic and that it is this kind of thinking that enables theology to accommodate culture in the wrong ways.

Another place in Chapter 3 where I see Rollins ruffling feathers is his idea of evangelism. Most evangelical Christians view evangelism as a persuasive means of communicating Biblical truth in order to give someone an answer. For Rollins, evangelism means "…we must have faith to believe that those who seek will find for themselves…If this is true, then the job of the Church is not to provide an answer - for the answer is not a phrase or doctrine - but rather to help encourage the religious question to arise." (Pp. 40-41) In other words, we are to be an aroma of God to people. This is a really radical paradigm shift in thinking and, once the dust settles, can either offer an epiphany or burning anger and heartburn. For those who have all their ducks in a row, all their answers neatly packaged, this will seem absurd and ungodly. For those open to rethinking these things, then it will take what Kierkegaard calls a "leap of faith" into the absurd as when Abraham obeyed God to sacrifice Isaac. God commanded that we shall not commit murder but then asks Abraham to do the unthinkable - kill his son. Why didn't Abraham question God about this because it certainly was absurd? Yet, Abraham took a leap of faith into the absurd to befaithful to God.

A place in Chapter 4 where I believe Rollins will find some critique is the idea of death bringing us into more authentic beings. Philosopher Martin Heidegger believed "it is only in realizing that we are moving towards death that we can become authentic human beings, for once we realize that we are going to die, we take more responsibility for our life." (p. 47) Many Christians believe they are already authentic by being true to God and the Bible. People who are not followers of Christ I believe are searching for authenticity but I would beg to differ that people are thinking about death. They are in love with the here and now of their lives and thus, are already taking responsibility for their lives. Thinking about death is a spiritual issue and many people are not spiritual in the
sense that Christians define spiritual.

I really enjoyed this book and found it to be well thought out, researched, and scholarly. My belief is that Rollins genuinely knows the pulse of this emerging generation and offers valid and comprehensible thought and praxis. He understands the difference between religion and faith, where religion is a human attempt to define God and faith is a place of holding our ideas of God loosely.
"A true seeking after God results from an experience of God which one falls in love with for no other reason other than finding God irresistibly lovable." (p. 50)  This is my prayer for myself and brings to mind a parable I once found on Ikon's web site:

Whoever shall lose their life

There is an ancient story, passed down through the generations that tells of a group ofunknown disciples who witnessed the bloody crucifixion of Christ.

Not able to stay another moment in the place were their Messiah had just been crucified they packed their few belongings and left for a distant shore. With great sorrow they turned their back on the place of their birth, never to return. Instead they founded an isolated community far away from Jerusalem. On the first night that they set up camp each disciple vowed to keep the ground holy, they promised that as long as they were permitted to live they would keep the memory of Christ alive and endeavour to follow the way that he had once taught.

The community lived in great solitude for over a hundred years, spending their days reflecting upon the life of Jesus and attempting to remain faithful to his ways. All this despite the overwhelming sorrow in their hearts and the harrowing sacrifices that such a dedicated life required.

Endless days passed until at dawn one morning, a small band of missionaries stumbled upon the isolated settlement. These preachers of the Word where amazed by the community that they found, they were startled by the fact that these dedicated disciple’s of Christ had no knowledge of his resurrection and ascension. Without hesitation the missionaries gathered together the entire community and taught them about the events that had transpired after the horrific crucifixion of their Lord, telling them of His victory over sin and death and the subsequent rewards we can partake of because of this.

That evening there was a great celebration in the camp. Yet, as the night grew dark, one of the younger missionaries noticed that the leader of the community was absent. This bothered the young man and so he set out to look for the elder. After some time he eventually found the leader kneeling in the corner of a small hut, on the fringe of the village, praying and weeping.

”Why are you in such sorrow”, asked the missionary in amazement “for now is the hour for great celebration”.

”Indeed” replied the elder, who was all the while crouched on the floor, ‘this is an hour
for rejoicing, but it is also a time for great sorrow”.

“For over a hundred years we have followed the ways taught to us by Christ. We
emulated his teachings faithfully even though it cost us deeply, and we remained
resolute despite the belief that death had defeated Him and would one day defeat us
also”.

The elder slowly got to his feet and looked the missionary compassionately in the face.

”Each day we have forsaken our very lives for Him. Why? Because we judge Him wholly worthy of the sacrifice, wholly worthy of our being. You find me now, praying for myself and for my future generations, for I am fearful that we may one day follow him not because we love Him and believe him to be worthy of that love, but rather because we love ourselves and want the treasures of eternal life that he offers”.  After offering these thoughts to the young missionary, the elder left the hut and made his way to the celebration, leaving the teacher on his knees in quiet contemplation." (Adapted from an Islamic story)

May we all continually become aware of God and our need for God indwelling every fiber of our being. Amen!

Comments

[geoff holsclaw]

Adele (a.k.a. existential punk), thank you so much for the helpful introduction and summary. 

I agree that Pete's book will rightly ruffle so features over here in the evangelical USAmerica. 

I want to ask some questions of those who have read the book, especially concerning the story you quote at the end about the community which had never heard of the resurrection.

This story (beginning on p. 80) is fitted inside of a tenebrae service (the service of shadow held on Good Friday; although Pete notes that this service happen in the middle of winter instead of on Easter Week).  Pete notes that he imagines the need for Christians to function within the paradigm of Holy Saturday, to psychologically endure, or persist agaist our will or inclination, the possibility of non-Resurrection.  Pete traces this line of thought to protect against a selfish appropiation of the Resurrection for our own benefit rather than the implicit value of the Crucified One; instead of Christian Hedonism (a la John Piper) we need to "each day forsake our lives for him" as the "one wholly worth of sacrifice." 

Now I certainly understand the pastoral importance of this, and the need for persistant reflection on Good Friday, and Holy Saturday.  But my question is, Has Pete absolutized Good Friday at the expense of Easter Sunday?  Does his theology, and not just his pastoral and/or liturgical practice, live on in Good Friday almost without Easter Sunday?

I could be wrong, but I feel at times he tends toward a Theology of Friday instead of Sunday.  I would briefly put forth that only because of the Resurrection (because of Easter Sunday) can we retroactively assign holiness (that which sets apart, or sanctifies) to Holy Saturday, and goodness (producing life, wellness, beauty) to Good Friday.

I could be wrong, and maybe Pete only emphasizes this as a pastoral moment of contextualization, not intending to build a theology out of it.  But in general I feel that his pastoral/liturgical moments run through his mystical/negative theology more than the other way around.

[rodney neill]

If we think of Easter Saturday as the time of darkness, absence and non -presence as 'the time in between' because Christ has been Crucified but not Risen I believe Petes theological outlook would be most comfortable there as this has connotations of the unknowability and undecidability of the God without being. I am not sure if any theology of the Resurrection or the Coming of the Holy Spirit would fit into his ideas - they are not really mentioned in his book. However I could be misinterpreting Pete!!

[rodney neill]

My thanks to Adele as well for her very lucid and helpful introduction.

[Pete R]

Thanks Adele for getting the ball rolling on this process, you have been a great encouragement to me over the years. In terms of the 'Good Friday' emphasis - which Rod notes is something I prefer to place as 'Holy Saturday' (but which does not take away from the point being made) I would largely say that it is contextual, i.e. the rupture needed within Ikon was one that took nihilism seriously. I am quite existentialist when it comes to the idea of writing into a temporal moment, rather than creating an atemporal, balanced system. However, if I thought this then why write the book for others, why not keep it to ikon? The answer is at least partly because I feel that this is not merely contextually relevant to a group in Belfast but more fundamentally to an historical moment in the church. Big words, I know.

The book is temporal, autobiographical and within authority, however I think that this particularistic approach has a universal message for this moment. I need to spell that out in more detail in order for it to be testable, however I will leave that to another time.

In relation to Rodney's comments and concerns, I have heard this before from people and appreciate you bringing it up but actually I don't think it sticks - my whole point (although it may come across more in my next work) is that I affirm a Happening, a Rupture, an Incoming. Indeed this is what gets faith started, what got my hand writing and my heart racing. Everything I wrote was in the aftermath of that Happening. And what better name to name that Happening than the Holy Spirit? The book does not point to the Spirit in its words but rather testifies to the Spirit by its very existence.

[Pete R]

PS 'within' should read 'without'

[Pete R]

PPS the parable quoted in the main text isn't actually adapted from an Islamic story, in case anyone was wondering... there is another story I tell which is.

[Tim Abbott]

On the whole I found this book helpful and challenging.
I particularly appreciated Pete's observation about our views of God becoming idolatrous - we can often seem more eager to describe God than to respond to God and then to somehow own our description over against someone else's description. "Speaking of God is never speaking of God but only ever speaking about our understanding of God".
I love his emphasis on the primacy of our response to God, of the transforming quality that emanates from transformed lives more than neat doctrine. For those of us brought up in a strict evangelical tradition this feels like an abandonment of Truth.
Pete restores a sense of the magnitude of God and the futility of our attempts at understanding beyond the limits of God's revelation of himself to us.
I agree with Geoff regarding Pete's emphasis on Good Friday at the expense of Easter Sunday. Surely our best response to the events of the cross and the empty tomb is to accord them equal regard. Our experience is dulled because we know the end from the beginning. Indeed, in the Eastern Orthodox tradition Easter Saturday is actively celebrated as a day of mourning before the 'surprise' and joy of the resurrection celebration.

[Jason Hesiak]

I haven't read the book, but I have caught up on some readings about the book, Adam Cleveland's paper on Apophatic and Cataphatic theology, and I spend a portion of my life with my nose in a bunch of mystical texts and my heart in a mystical world. I also read the interview of Rollins. Basic point being I think I see his basic point. Around my time in the mystical texts, one of the notes I scribbled while lisetning to a sermon was, "If we have nothing to die for, we have nothing to live for." I like Heiddegher to a certain extent too. But, I dunno...lately I've come to think I was at that time at least partially listening to a voice other than that of Christ. Greeks thought of death as mortality and limit, Hebrews as abandonment and darkness kind of thing (OK, oversimplification, I know). The infamouse "carpe dium" thing didn't come from the Judaio-Christian tradition.

I read something in the comments on the "Who's afraid of doubt" post from Geoff about the Greek discourse, the Hebrew discourse, the Apostolic discourse, and the mystical discourse. He was leading to a point of "the possibility of uniting proclamation and transformation", which to me sounded great, but the whole framework seemed weird to me, because of how it defined the Greek and Hebrew discourses at the beginning. In terms of wisdom and signs. Now, THAT made great sense of "foolishness to the Greeks and a stumbling block to the Jews", but here comes this death train again.

From what I have gathered, there is this "...for the worries of today are enough" thing...don't be so caught up with that stuff, as are the "pagan hordes". Affirmation of our existence seems to me to be one of those distinguishing marks of one not marked with the voice that the living Christ will be with us always...an affirmation that comes out of a worry of death...reflected in our "worries" about daily "necessities". Necessity is that which is inevitable (fate).

Point being, I dunno...maybe all that theological stuff about Bidiou or whoever (sorry, I wish I knew who that guy was) points in a different direction, and so I'm just coming from left field...but when I look to God and his presence/working in the world, I see the differences between Greeks and Hebrews (leading to Jesus) pointing in a different direction mainly. This death train gets derailed by that Jesus fella. He's alive, with me, and whispering in my ear about it constantly. I turn to him (and his personhood), not to my death ("they don't want me, they wan't my death..." from that funny movie, "The Doors").

So, what does that have to do with this post? It's that death thing. Again, I like Heiddegher, I like mysticism, and, being a poet (poets write in red) whose Dad died a few years ago, I've confronted death (sort of). And, well, being Christian. But, well, I hear that quote from Heiddegher as having some measure of authority, and I get a bit queezy...

I'm no theologian (nor have I read the book), so someone tell me if I'm shouting from left field and then turning and running off into foul ball territory. I will humbly shush, and listen gladly to the ensuing conversation. I am learning so much from all you guys anyway (including Geoff...a lot!). Want to take this opportunity to say thanks!

[ron]

Having been a pilgrim for some 35 years, stumbling down this narrow path...I at one point had all my building blocks of knowledge errected, proud and content I had finally figured out. The further I walked down this corridor of history, the pieces didn't fit, I actually found I knew less...to the point now, where they have crumbled and I stand in their rubble around my feet.Pete Rollins book has helped me to understand where I have found myself...that question, and mystery can be truth...that there is a restless contentment that drives us deeper into the reality of God.
When Pete talked about the tension of reading scripture with a double hermeneutic, that acknowledges our reading of the Bible ( as mediated through our particular tradition ) must be re-examined and wrestled with repeatedly as we encounter the situations that present themselves us. It is in the midst of this double reading between our interpretation of the texts and our interaction that the christian community operates.

It is this double reading that ensures that we are never absolved from the difficult job of making moral decisions. The double reading requires not only a commitment to listening to and serving the people we meet, but also a deep respect for the christian tradition. We engage with our religious tradition, for it acts as a compass that allows us to navigate the world. Yet we must combine this compass reading with a knowledge of the terrain inn which we find ourselves and a deep love in order in order to work out which way we must travel.

Our interpretations of the Bible must be seen as temporary shelters rather than eternal structures. We never finish reading the bible, but always find ourselves standing on its threshold, ready to read again. Thus we can never rest easy, believeing that we have discovered the foundations that act as a key for working out what we must do in different situations: for the only clear foundation laid down by Jesus was the law of love. This love demands that we use the scripture not as an ethical textbook but rather as a texts that extrapolates the Christlike way of being in the world.

I kept thinking, how many has the church sacrificed...because we've only read what we wanted...and not read the eyes of the other.

Wonderful book, a much needed breath of fresh air for the church...as it struggles to tread water in world and culture it finds itself.

[Existential Punk]

Pete, sorry about misquoting the parable. i found it a long time ago before ikon's site changed and that's what was at the end of it. Where does it actually come from?

[Pete R]

Jason I really enjoyed your post, it is a productive challenge to what I am doing. I also like the way that your words are pregnant with a sense that you are wrestling with yourself as much as me in all this i.e. that your concerns come from a respect, and perhaps even love, of the melancholic wisdom from Greek and Hebrew philosopher/prophets and the mystical insights of the desert pilgrims. I guess I have been influenced by the Eckhartian sounding thought that we must create the void within because God so abhors a void that God will speak life into it. The least kept secret about me back in Belfast is that I am a closet evangelist who is always turning out the lights (creating nihilistic space) in order to point to a faint glow we had previously missed (Christ). I am not saying this is true, but perhaps it is.

Thanks a lot Ron for your warm words, in many ways I am seeking to bring Christianity out of the heavenly clouds of abstraction and into grounded, factical, immanenent eistence (without losing transcendence). Marx stands in the background as an influence here. I must say however that some people have been concerned by my influences – that I have listened too closely to the underling ontological commitments of my dead debating partners. I may well listen to them closely however I read them through the lens of a Happening, a Christ event in my life. This means that I can agree wholeheartedly with what they say at times while interpreting it in a radically different manner.

Concerning the parable its origin is the dark recesses of my unholy imagination.

[Richard]

Thank you all for this conversation. I too have been greatly helped by it. I would like to share a song that I wrote recently that ponders on a similar theme to what we've been discussing. I guess you could call it 'Saturday':

The place where I’m living
But there’s no place where I can rest my head
The life that I’m giving
To realise the colour of the world
The love that I’m seeking
Beauty that awaits to be discovered

But there’s no winner
There’s no prize to take
There’s no praise
There’s no self at stake
There’s no cover
There’s no certainty
There’s no claim
There’s no dignity
There’s just love

How far do you want to go?
Love
How much do you want to know?
Love
How deep does the question grow?
Love
Do you want to know? Do you want to go?
Love
Love

The time that I’m given
The chance to play a part here in the world
The choice that I’m making
It’s dangerous to stay inside the lines
The song that I’m singing
The heart to look at death between the eyes

[mark]

great book and great conversation here..one of the most important books ive read that fleshes out this idea of Holy Saturday is:

Between Cross and Resurrection: A Theology of Holy Saturday by Alan E. Lewis (Paperback - Jul 2003)

His life work in which at the end, he brings it to bear on the cancer that eventually takes his life..

I think Rollins' has articulated one of the best renderings of what the emerging church is all about through affirming the desire to avoid being caught in the violence of binary language games.

It is the true loss of identity, the giving up of that which leads to closure. It is here that a space is created “for the Spirit’s power to arrive” so that the discourse (in the ethic of proximity) maintains the object of communication as obscure and unobjectifiable.” Rollins adds “instead of closing thought down…this discourse opens up thought.

Those invovled in this whole emerging conversation are seeking to de-elevate the western category of "belief" as internal, abstract systems. Instead, as Rollins notes, praxis leads doxy so that in the end the two are almost inseperable. (it is in light of all this that I find the recent rhetoric about emerging v. missional tragically missing the point)

Rollins embodies this ethic of openness throughout the book, attempting to create spaces in which to overcome various dualisms that have long plagued the church.

The notion of the face of the other as icon deserves more thought!

Thanks for your work Pete and we look forward to future works!

Mark

[Jason Hesiak]

Thanks Pete and Adele for your responses to my comment. And Geoff - you're off the hook. I got to thinking in that half-here half-there world of almost-asleeep last night, and realized, "WAIT a second...that death thing is what Geoff's framework was ALL ABOUT!" I almost got up and came and did another comment...but, alas, work the next day! But anyway, sorry for any misunderstanding Geoff. But my basic QUESTion remainded, so...anyway. And thanks guys for reopening my eyes again to a conversation that is a lot of work. Its not for us, it seems, that the coversation happens with the "Other". You mean I'm not the center of the world!? :)

[Jason Hesiak]

And Pete...you must be good at that turning the lights out thing. 'Cause when I've tried to do that, or say, puff everything into a Cloud, then folks have mostly just gotten annoyed and perplexed...(any hints woudl be great, although you will probably just tell me to read the book :)

[adrian walker]

Dear Peter,

I'm afraid I'm going to sound a somewhat discordant note here, but I would like to repose the question that I raised in the last thread about Smith’s book on postmodernity.

Before I raise the question, though, just let me say that I fully agree with what I take to be your emphasis on the inexhaustible mystery, but only of God, but of everything. As Aquinas says, we don't even know the essence of a fly, let alone of God.

My question, then, is compelled by what I would argue is the traditional Christian claim that God has revealed himself, and that, in revealing himself, he also makes use of propositions, for example, those of Scripture or those of the church's dogmatic tradition. If I have been reading your comments correctly (and, unfortunately, that is all have to go on, since I have not read your book), you seem to want to minimize this word-dimension of Revelation in favor of something like event. My difficulty with this, let me be clear, is not that you want to retrieve the event-dimension of Revelation, but that you seem to want to do so more or less at the expense of the word-dimension, at least insofar as the latter would involve the idea of true propositions about God.

Now, it may be that I am getting you entirely wrong, and if I am, then please correct me. But if I have not getting you wrong, and my account of your position is more or less accurate, then I would like to hear how you would answer the following three critical questions.

First, why cannot the word-dimension and the event-dimension be equi-primordial?

Second, how does your position avoid plain old garden-variety relativism? If the event is in and of itself word-less and ineffable, then why is it better to call that event "Christ" rather than "Buddha" or "Seyn” or "rock 'n roll"?

Third, granted that conceptual idolatry is a great evil, isn't there also a danger of making a conceptual idol out of the critique of conceptual idolatry---just like there is a danger of becoming self-righteous about not being self-righteous? It seems to me that what Newman called the "dogmatic principle" is as good a check to conceptual idolatry is anything else, even though, like any other proposed check, it can be perverted into its opposite. After all, the obligation to believe things that exceed reason is a continual reminder that our puny minds cannot comprehend the height, and, length and breadth, et cetera.

Once again, I'm not proposing a return to some sort of dry as dust propositionalist account of faith, but simply trying to argue that there is no reason to deny that revelation as an event of divine self-communication that transcends all understanding nonetheless includes an original word-/proposition-dimension, in which it is God himself speaking, albeit in human language. Indeed, it seems to me that precisely if the event of Revelation is the Incarnation of the Word, then we should expect that part of it would be the incarnation of the creative event of divine speaking in human words that, in virtue of this incarnation, participate in what might be called the "authority" of the divine speaker.

Cordially,
Adrian

[Jason Hesiak]

"First, why cannot the word-dimension and the event-dimension be equi-primordial?" I think the idea is to point to place where they ARE...but the golden calf has to be melted on the way there (at least that seems to be the thought, once melted it can be molded). And I also have a feeling that folks know the "Happening" isn't Buddah or rock 'n roll as soon as they walk through the door of a Christian church (or even before they get anywhere near it). I don't cram Jesus down the throats of my Tao or non-Christian friends with my words (unlike some strangers), but they still avoid that door like its the plague. And they still know who I am too (unlike those strangers, with whom my non-Christian friends share no events in their memory). Someone correct me if I'm wrong. And someone who knows more please expound...

[maninthepew]

One wonders how much of Petes
theological outlook is influenced by the 'religion without religion' approach of John Caputo {who rejects any idea of the revelation of God and therefore all the truth claims of the Christian confessional tradition. All one is left with are vague unspecified assertions about love and justice or 'a thinned-out sanctified version of religious skeptism']. Such ideas as the Gospel as Good News,salvation,redemption or justification by faith in any of their various theological formulations are either not engaged with or disolved into nothingness because they are dependant on the idea of the self-revelation of God in Christ - yet surely they are at the heart of the Christian faith! Our knowledge of the reality of God surely rests on his gift of revelation - not on the certainity of rational proofs of his existence. Pete seems to stress the the unknowability of God so much that faced with questions of whether God is actually real he would probably say I don't know!!

I have not studied theology or philosphy so my points are not articulate - am I barking up the wrong tree or can anyone develope a more academic critique of religion without religion ( maybe no one wants to!!)

[maninthepew]

I would also echo the comments made in such a articulate fashion by Adrian

[Geoff Holsclaw]

maninthepew,
Great question.  I really think that this will clarify where Rollins stands in relation to other postmodern philosophers.  I just want to let you know that next weeks engagement by christopher rousei will actually be a comparison of Caputo's Weakness of God (which interestingly focuses on the "Event") and Pete's book to find similarities and contrast. 

But if people want to jump into that line of thought now, that would be great too.

[ron]

"First, why cannot the word-dimension and the event-dimension be equi-primordial?"

I think that is what I found refreshing about Pete's book, in the backdrop of my own experience.Peter Rollin's in his book talks about this double hermeneutics, this double reading...of you could say " word " and "experience." That is probably a tension that has not been there for the most part, we didn't actually read the experience. We might have said we did, but if we are honest?
As the church travels this corridor of history, we need to be constantly re-reading both the word and the experience we find ourselves in.We get a strong sense in the gospels that Jesus was constantly engaged in this double reading. It frustrated the religious establishment of his, because it seemed to contradict their reading...and it did.
I think we need to read in this Christlike manner...where love seemed to be the default.I know from spending time working around a university inter-faith chapel students seemed to be engaged in this type of re-reading, and struggling with the tension they find themselves in.
The word-dimension and the event-dimension are equi-primordial...we need to read this way.

[adrian walker]

Dear Peter,

It occurred to me this morning that I should add a word about the relationship between the resurrection and holy Saturday. Maybe we could say that the resurrection not only crowns the incarnation of the word, but retroactively puts the silence of holy Saturday at the heart of that incarnation. If this is the case, then two things happen at once. On the one hand, any relegation of the word to a secondary status vis-à-vis the event, such as I and Maninthepew are worried about, is ruled out. On the other hand, however, a dimension of silence, of silent presence in the flesh, becomes internal to the word, which therefore cannot be properly understood outside of one flesh union with Christ and the Holy Spirit.

Dear Maninthepew,

I think you're raising exactly the right question.

Dear Jason,

My point is not that people walking into Peter Rollins's church wouldn't know immediately that the name of the happening is Christ. My point is that I'm not sure how, if Peter Rollins insists on the pure pre-verbal ineffability of the event, he can give an adequate, non-relativistic account of why we should call that happening Christ and of what difference it makes to do so.

Dear Ron,

I have to confess that I don't quite understand what you are driving at---could you maybe say it again in a slightly different way? Thanks.

Cordially,
Adrian

[Richard]

For us who have been brought into the world coloured by the Christian faith tradition, our icon is Jesus. Our best marker for the nature and character of God. The one we refer to to help us interpret the 'event' - of God communicating with us. But our interpretation will always be enslaved by our words or attempts to draw conclusions. (e.g. our readiness to dismiss other iconic figures.) What Pete helped me to realise through his book is that it is our heart-felt response to the 'event' that really matters. It is our response of worship to God expressed through our daily life that reflects the power of the transformative event we have received.

[adrian walker]

Dear Richard,

I have absolutely no problem with the critique of conceptual idolatry, which, by the way, is also a part of the Christian tradition (see Dionysius or John of the Cross), or with the warning against dismissing other "icons" of God. But surely it is part of the definition of being Christian to hold that Jesus is icon, is image, in a unique sense. By the same token, I think my basic question still remains unanswered: if Christ is not the proper name of the transformative event, then he is at best one of its avatars, and if that is the case, then perhaps we should become Hindus, insofar as Hinduism would then be a better account of the transformative event than Christianity. I would raise the further question as to whether, if Christ is not the proper name of the transformative event, it is really worth getting involved with that event in the first place. Finally, it seems to me that if the transformative event does not have proper name, which we have to acknowledge as the proper name that it gives itself, then the transformative event ends up being practically indistinguishable from something of our own making. Confessing the name name of the Lord Jesus as the proper name that God himself authoritatively gives to the transformative event that he brings about a world is necessary to avoid conceptual idolatry.

Cordially,
Adrian

[rodney neill]

My reaction to the book as mixed - it seemed to have moments of flashes of wonderful insight and yet puzzling ideas that I think would need a lot further explanation.

Would the postliberal approach to theology such as lindbeck not say that any experience of preverbal affirmative of an event can have no cognitive recognition as all experience is shaped by our worldview/language game.
Like man in the pew I have not studied theology so I appreciate I could well be wrong or misunderstand!

Rodney

[Pete R]

A couple of days away and there are so many questions which each require a lot of work. If I may I would like to take a slightly different track in attempting to answer the question being raised about the place of Christ in the Christian tradition as the revealed Word of God. Basically I would like to draw a distinction raised (in a different way) by Buber and developed by Agamben between the faith of Christ and the faith in Christ. The faith of Christ is the faith which fuelled the life of Jesus and the faith in Christ is the faith we have in him as the son of God and member of the Godhead. It is not that I think we must place the faith in Christ in a secondary position to the faith of Christ but rather that we must place it in a certain tension with it. Jesus didn’t wear a T.Shirt saying ‘God’ and when, after a long time, one or two people started to posit that he might be the Messiah, what did he do, say ‘go tell everyone’? No he told them to keep quiet. In other words I think that the questions concerning issues related to the faith in Christ might be misleading – perhaps if Jesus walked into Church today (a big if) then he would tell us to keep quiet about these things! I would tentatively say that the faith in Christ is deconstructable (always open to legitimate debate and rethinking, and thus requiring heretics) and the faith of Christ is not (here the heretics must always be orthodox).

I think that my approach (which I wholeheartedly think is part of the tradition rather than my own novel imaginings) can fit rather easily with such things as the Pascalian idea that Christianity can be favoured over other religions because of such things as its ability to explain the human condition with such exactitude and because of it’s tradition of miracles (not that I am saying I agree with this - I am merely pointing out that my position does not entail that one gives up any prioritisation of Christianity).

One final point is that I do not favour one type of revolutionary event over another, for me this talk of event is attempting to get to grips with what revelation is regardless of the way it approaches – revelation brought about from scriptural word or walk in the mountains is a rent in our being that is epistemologically incomprehensible (not reducible to intellectual presence in its radical presence), experientially bedazzling (not reducible to sensational grasp in its radical presence) and existentially transformative.

Hope that’s helpful.

[rodney neill]

oops - my post should read affirmation and not affirmative!!!

Rodney

[Pete R]

PS 'Revolutionary' should read 'revelationary' - but I like the Fruedian slip!!!

[Richard Higginson]

Hi Adrian

I empathise greatly with your question, as I find myself also battling with that 'default' to clarify the 'greyness' and claim that Jesus is the proper name of the transformative event. In one sense I believe it to be true, because I am a witness to the transforming work in my own life through Jesus as icon. But I want to resist the conceptual idol of Jesus as the best or only proper name of the event, because I think that this assumption enslaves the actual truth, when we use language to interact with others of other faith traditions or atheists. I think it encourages a 'power discourse' - a commanding approach, where we believe we have the original truth and become resistent to change ourselves, yet seek to change the other. This has been our position for centuries, and it has been very damaging.
I don't think it is necessary to get caught up in speculation over 'what is the proper name?' If it is the truth we seek, then let us seek the truth. If it is love, then let us seek love, together with those who also seek these things regardless of their religio-cultural background. As Jesus has taught, 'all who ask, receives, they that seek, find, and they that knock, the door will be opened to them.' May it be so in our quest.

[adrian walker]

Dear Peter,

Thank you for your response. To be quite honest, I feel that you have essentially restated your position, rather than directly answering the questions that I and Maninthepew have been asking. The distinction between the faith of Christ and the faith in Christ raises some pretty serious questions about the unity of the New Testament, which, at least in Paul, is pretty clear about Jesus being Lord in a unique sense. And that, by the way, is the real issue, for, unless he is, then I don't see how Christianity could uniquely explain the human condition. But, as I say, the questions that I raised, and that I think Maninthepew raised too, concerning the relationship between word and event have still not yet been directly tackled. Let me make it clear, however, that I don't mean to reject simply your emphasis on event as so to say explosion of grace, but simply to argue that there is no need to oppose the rupture of the event to the word---see my remarks above about the resurrection, holy Saturday, and the silence of the heart of the word.
Cordially,
Adrian

[adrian walker]

Dear Richard,

Thank you for your kind response. I do think that we have a pretty fundamental disagreement here. The New Testament, as I just said in my reply to Peter, seems pretty clear about the fact that Jesus has had bestowed on him the name that is above every other name. It seems to me that Christianity stands or falls with the truth of this claim.

Not only that, but we do not really transcend the bad absolutism you're rightly worried about by relativizing it. For, even if we say that Jesus is a good icon for us, but not necessarily for everyone else, then we are still not out of the woods yet, because we will still be making claims about the whatever it is which Jesus is supposed to be one of the icons of, claims that we can just as easily use for self-righteous power trips as old-fashioned believers can use the traditional claims about the person of Christ. The only difference will be that we will be self-righteously power tripping on our humility before the mystery.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that we can't self-righteously power trip on the name of Jesus---something he warned us against when he said for example that not everyone who calls him Lord Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven. What I am suggesting is that claiming that Jesus is the name above every other name either in this world or in the world to come is not all necessarily the same thing, and does not at all necessarily lead to, self righteously power tripping on that name. To confess the name of the Lord Jesus as being above every other name is not so much to stand over to grasp but to let oneself be stood over and grasped. But the whole point is that if Jesus really isn't the name above every other name, then we deprive God of the initiative to come to us first, and if we do that then we deprive him of his power as the living God to stand over us, grasp us, and smash our idolatry, conceptual or otherwise.

In short, the claim that Jesus is Lord above every other name is precisely the repudiation of every form of idolatry that puts its own conceptions in the place of God's transformative event of resurrection.

Cordially,
Adrian

[ron]

Hi Adrian,what exactly do you mean by relationship between word and event? Maybe I'm mis-understanding, but my sense, it is trying to read the word and the cultural context the church finds itself. Say the tension in reading...environmental issues, human sexuality,global warming,escalating conflict and war. These are the experiences that the church finds itself, and the tension to read the word and the experience in a christlike manner...and to engage and act as Christ would. Is this what you mean...or am I out in left field.

Peace...Ron+

[adrian walker]

Dear Ron,

Thanks for your clarification and question. I guess what I'm talking about is more the relationship between revelation as an event, as a surprising thing that happens, and revelation as word, as God telling us about himself. It seemed to me that Peter Rollins was raising the question in terms like these. But I do agree with you that we rereading the word in a Christlike way in order to sort through the new questions of the day is an important and difficult issue in its own right.
Cordially,
Adrian

[maninthepew]

Ron,
If we take a text such as 'The gospel is the power of God for salvation'-we might think of salvation as a multidimenional multifaceted truth embracing health, liberation, reconciliation, foregiveness of sins, wholeness etc. We can then engage with modern culture with a nuanced multiple reading of the idea of salvation

However if I am right and Petes bedrock starting point is religion without religion a la Caputo and Derrida all these meanings of salvation are works of fiction and story as God is essentially unknown and unknowable - a nonrealist view of religious skeptism. God is equated with Derridas idea of justice - Derrida himself admits that justice never arrives within the horizons of human experience or knowledge. We could never experience and appreciate any of these meanings of salvation as an actual reality seen with the eyes of faith and thus the heart of the gospel is lost!! The joy of knowing that your sins are forgiven by an actual God is just a delusion to keep you happy as God is not really there.

It remains for Pete to give us some constructive and tentative proposals for his understanding of salvation - if he falls within in Derridean camp he cannot. However as I am only a beginner in this area I could be incorrect!!
I appreciate that next week we will hear some expert academic analysis on the whole Pete Rollins/John Caputo relationship and I look foward to this !!!!!!!

[adrian walker]

Dear Peter,

It seems to me that the real disagreement here does not concern the need to overcome conceptual idolatry, or the importance of what you're calling event as transcending discursive-propositional rationality. I'm pretty much on board with those things, at least when they're stated generally. The true bone of contention, then, concerns what is necessary to protect the whatever it is that for the purposes of this conversation you're calling event. It seems to me---but you have to correct me if I misunderstanding you---that you think that this what ever it is is in itself essentially pre-verbal or super-verbal, and that every verbal formulation is, at best, his subsequent attempt to do justice to the whatever it is, but that the formulation is not essentially part of the original event. What I'm contending, is that this account of the whatever it is as essentially pre-verbal or super-verbal, both raises serious theological and philosophical objections, which I've tried to outline here, and is not necessary to secure the double concerned I mentioned right at the beginning. In fact, it seems to me that there is a big danger of falling into a new kind of absolutism. For, if all the speaking is on our side, and not at all on the side of the event, then how do we avoid taking depriving God of his ability to speak and to make himself understood in order to fit him into a predetermined mental framework that tends to make an absolute of apophaticism? Now, my point is not that you actually do any of these things; I am simply trying to state as clearly as possible what I think is at stake in the disagreement that I see emerging here.
Cordially,
Adrian

[maninthepew]

Adrian,

I think you last post has helped to really clarify some of the difficulties with Petes theological approach!

[Pete R]

Thanks for all this. I would say however that God's 'inability' to communicate the mind of God to humanity may be analogous to saying that that God lacks power because God cannot communicate the mind of God to a monkey! In other words, the ‘inability’ to pour the molten lava of God's self-revelation into the fragile vessel of the human mind is not of the kind which diminishes God from being ‘that which none greater can be conceived’. However, even if it were the case that God could reveal God in a manner that did not result in our immediate demise, I would still argue that this is not how God chooses to self-reveal anyway. I would argue that linguistic revelation still speaks in a temporal, contextual manner (that hints at a universal) and is there to evoke transformation. I believe this does justice to the structure of the biblical text, for example the fact that many of the revelations of God in the bible initially seem to collide (God who hears all, God who is deaf, God as warrior, God as peacemaker, God as unchanging, God as one who reconsiders etc. etc.). I also think that we can understand Christ in this way - as the revelation which conceals

While influenced by (the desert) Derrida I am also very interested in (the mystical) Marion, while my own ‘religious experiences’ act as the primary data for my reflections and development of Ikon. All this means that my Christian ‘religion with/out religion’ is actually drawn more toward an incarnational (non)epistemology whereby the inability to render God present results from the presence of God. I am indeed very influenced by Caputo, who I respect as a thinker and as a man of integrity, so I look forward to the next engagement as well.

I understand that I still have not answered the question about the place of Christ. I will try and do that on my next post as I hate to make these things too long.

[Pete R]

To add one thing, Westphal usefully speaks of the hermeneutics of sin and the hermeneutics of finitude - which really act as two limits to hermeneutics. These biblical ideas by which we are limited by own trespasses and finite nature help to express why we cannot understand the infinity of God – who is received but never conceived.

[maninthepew]

Pete,

the poor old Holy Spirit as the revelation of God in Christ does not fare too well in your theology!

'the inability to render God present results from the presence of God' - I am not sure my challenge to explain any tentative proposals for your understanding of salvation will fare too well either!

[maninthepew]

Pete,

please disregard my first comment about the Holy Spirit as it does not make sense!!!!!!!! I meant the role of the Holy Spirit to reveal the reality of god in Christ!!

[adrian walker]

Dear Peter,

Thanks a lot for your response. I agree with everything you say about God's being incomprehensible. I especially like your remark about God's being so present that he is absent---so much light that we're blinded by the dazzle of it all. That having been said, we still disagree, not on the fact of incomprehensibility, but in our respective accounts of it. It seems to me that Christianity---Christ---is about holding together both the abiding incomprehensibility of God and the reality of his self-revelation. Obviously, each of these is by itself just a partial truth; if Christians have often gone wrong in insisting on the latter without the former, it is equally possible to go wrong by insisting on the former in such a way as to make the latter impossible. I would like to suggest is that we need to get beyond the assumption that, if we were to speak truly about God in the way that the church has understood Scripture or dogma to do, then we would have domesticated the divine mystery, that is, denied divine incomprehensibility. Why can't it be the case that both a statement about God, such as "God is love," is true---literally and non-reformably true---and that we will never, either in this life or the next, get to the bottom of how it is true? It seems to me that such an account of talking about God does better justice to the paradox of abiding mystery in revelation than what I consider to be a one-sided emphasis on the unknowbility of God. My point about the need to avoid robbing God of his ability to reveal himself, also, though not exclusively, in human language---while of course retaining his mystery---was precisely that we need to steer a healthy middle ground between epistemic hubris, which you are rightly cautioning against, and a false epistemic humility that makes our inability the measure of what God can and cannot do in terms of self-revelation. My point is simply that this false epistemic humility savors more of Kant than, say, of Dionysius the Areopagite.
Cordially,
Adrian

[Jason Hesiak]

Derrida himself admits that justice never arrives within the horizons of human experience or knowledge. We could never experience and appreciate any of these meanings of salvation as an actual reality seen with the eyes of faith and thus the heart of the gospel is lost!! The joy of knowing that your sins are forgiven by an actual God is just a delusion to keep you happy as God is not really there."

"Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Charity never faileth: but whether [there be] prophecies, they shall fail; whether [there be] tongues, they shall cease; whether [there be] knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see darkly through a mirror as if in an enigma; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these [is] charity." - 1 Cor. 13: 7-13.

Of course that's no full answer to any questions, and it's debatable how it's related to Pet's point about humanity's limits for recieving Revelation...but certainly related to what's going on...food for thought I suppose...or maybe just a chewing of the Bible and Derrida in one mixed bite...see what happens when it goes down...

Jason

[Jason Hesiak]

And I want to reiterate that I am very much enjoying the conversation here...learning so much from you guys. I have sensed for myself in less articulate fashion the tension present in this conversation. The very fact of my reading it has helped. Whether questions get "answered" or not. One more question...how much of this tension is rooted in sin (in a sense temporary and not to be present in the Kingdom to come) and how much in human limits of whatever variety (simply what I guess might be referred to as an existential condition, or ontological, or something I'm not sure...in any case simply inherent in the relation between God and his world, a condition present now in in the age to come)? I realize that's probably a whole other series, but it's a lingering question in my mind. Thank you again all,

Jason

[rodney neill]

Hello Jason,

I am not sure if Pete would have a view of sin or the age to come (eschatology)as they are part of Christian confessional doctrine - so their status as any kind of reality is open to question. Pete is a good friend who I have met for coffee every 2 weeks for years now to discuss theology/philosphy - at times he still confuses and befuddles me with his theology.

[Jenn]

Let me preface my comments with the following disclaimers:

I haven't read the book (nor all of the responses thoroughly); I haven't studied theology (haven't even attended college); and my Christianity, per se, is shaky.

However, isn't all of this debating over word vs. event and Jesus as necessary icon vs. hindering idol, a great example of how the human mind grapples with language and concepts to distort the truth of God?

I mean no disrespect, but as someone who was fed way too much dogma growing up, with very little experiential knowledge of God, I have to say that whether the word is necessary to create, explain, prove, or teach the "event" is not really the point. The point (in my mind) is NOT to get caught up in the word, since that is where religion has gone a bit awry the last two thousands years or so... The experience is infinitely more important, and is the only way to give substance and meaning to the word anyway. In other words, without experience, the word is meaningless.

As far as whether or not Jesus must be an icon,idol, etc.. I believe the name, Christ, which was the name above all others, which was bestowed upon him, IS the ultimate of ultimate names... and that it referred to his essence, not he himself as a man, but he himself as God, which in my opinion, is worthy of our attention as beings who have that same essence and potential within us. I don't think it is necessary to worship Jesus the man to experience God or the Holy Spirit. The name Jesus the Christ simply gives our small and fallible human minds a word concept to grasp onto to bring us into the experience of God.

These are simply my thoughts. I'm positive many of you here, who are obviously more learned and educated about this topic than I am, can correct my errors (numerous though they may be).

I would like to add, Adele's review was wonderful, and as a result of reading it, I now want to read the book and learn more about this point of view. I'm intrigued. Thank you, Adele, for the informative and well written article.

[Jason Hesiak]

Thanks Rodney for addressing my question. I’m not sure what you’re getting at, so in light of my own confusion, let me clarify my question. I can see somewhat how vague my earlier one may have sounded. I am asking how much we are attributing our inability to fully receive the Revelation to our sin/the sinful condition of the world, and how much of this inability to our condition as limited humans who “happen” [not to be] God anyway, whether with our without sin? Which I suppose would lead to a question as to whether a more full Revelation would be sought in the gospel of Grace, forgiveness and unconditional love, or in a good song listened to under the teachings of, say, Pythagoras. Or, on some level they intermingle, interplay, and become hardly distinguishable, since it seems often times to me that the basic “point” of my sin is toward making myself “become like a god”; and this “me at the center of the universe thing”, in ANY form whatsoever, seems to be a lot of what Pete is attempting to break? Again…maybe I should just read the book? I think maybe this is partially what Adrian is getting at, but I think he and I are coming at this sort of from two different angles.

[Jason Hesiak]

And I'm aware that its not an either/or thing. Not so simple like that. But my artist friends would claim to the death that art is the salvation of man. "...but music and love can save us" - Red Hot Chilli Peppers (very theological - but that Neitche guy would probably agree). And, well, as an art lover, poet, painter, architect...this is a question that lingers in my mind.

I don't intend to shift the conversation to art, but rather I am thinking of a tension between this art thing and this "proclomation of the gospel" thing, although of course not necessarily so separate, as exemplary of my question of our condition being colored by either sin or our "human limits". Sort of two differnet strands of thought from two different traditions, I think. Maybe too, there are practical implications in my question...where our practical concentration would lie as a result of our concentration being on one tradition or the other. Now, maybe David the Psalmist from that OT thing would just stare blankly at me if I asked him a quesion like that (and not just cause he hadn't met Jesus personally yet), but...my question still lingers???

I mean, it would even, just on a practical level this would effect the art (or anything else) itself (I don't expect anyone to address THAT portion of my question...but it is still related). Most of my poems in the past have probably sounded more Greek...not much in there about redemption and righteousness...

Florentine Voyaging

Molten liquid glowing golden -
The yellow smoke upon the window panes…
Descent and rising under the dome,
Whirling and twirling within the shadows.
Vines are growing around the sun,
Monks chanting under a Duomo.
Men are melting into angle fire.

...some stuff about Grace more recently. Again, not to shift the focus...ONLY by way of an example the question to which I am pointing, I think similar to Adrian's.

[Jason Hesiak]

Hey all,

I came across these books. Quite relvant, and I thought you guys might enjoy (not that this guy is on the same page, but related - actually, I think that Marc Taylor and Pete Rollins are so easily identifiable as similar is probably part of Adrian's question, but anwyay...?):

Nots, by Marc C. Taylor

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226791319/ref=wl_itt_dp/104-2173372-9214347?ie=UTF8&coliid=I3CANDRKEF2SK9&colid=2UG5NOX8BQTN4
(on the first page are lines from a famouse poem by W.B. Yeats..."Turning and turning in the widening gyre/ The falcon cannot hear the falconer,/ Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold")

Erring: A Postmodern A/theology, by the same dude

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226791424/ref=wl_itt_dp/104-2173372-9214347?ie=UTF8&coliid=I3SRZNFIJRGB7F&colid=2UG5NOX8BQTN4
(has a labyrinth on the cover)

[Existential Punk]

i have to say after visiting numerous blogs and being a part of many conversations, the people here, even in disagreeing, are mature and kind in disagreeing and commenting. This really makes for healthy dialogue and helps to stay more on track. THANK YOU everyone, for your honesty, humility,maturity, and thought-provoking questions and dialogue! OTHERS could GREATLY learn from this conversation! Adele

[adrian walker]

Dear Jason,

Thanks for the new way of formulating the issues at stake in our debate that you have proposed. If what I'm about to say does not respond to what you are getting at, please steer me right. If I had to put my position in terms of rock music, it would be something like this. First off, I disagree with those who think that Christians should listen only to rock music when it has explicitly Christian messages---I'm not an expert, but my sense is that most Christian rock music is not so great artistically. Put positively, I agree with those who say that rock music that is not explicitly religious can be quite religious in another way. I have a sense that most people participating in this web site and in this thread would agree; all of us are probably more or less on the same page in terms of wanting something broader and richer than a kind of churchy, preachy moralistic Christianity. The real issue concerns the account we would give of how what is not explicitly religious can be religious. One account would be to say that Jesus and good rock 'n roll are two equally valid icons of one and the same ineffable Event. This is relativism. Now, I'm not saying that Peter subscribes to this kind of relativism, I'm just asking how he would distinguish his position from it, which I'm sure he would want to do anyway. An alternative account, and it's the one I would propose, would be to say that good rock 'n roll can be an icon of God even when it's not explicitly religious because in some way, perhaps even unbeknownst to the performers, it participates in the unique icon of God par excellence that we call Jesus Christ. In other words, I can find Jesus in (the not explicitly Christian) Bob Dylan or the Pogues---two special favorites of mine---precisely because Jesus and Dylan or the Pogues are not just equally valid, interchangeable faces or icons of the same Event. What I'm proposing, then, is a bit like the idea of that people who don't explicitly confess Christ also have a chance of salvation---even as their salvation would still be mediated by Jesus. This, by the way, seems to have become more or less the official mind of the Catholic Church, of which I'm a member.

Dear Jenn,

Thanks a lot for your forthright remarks. I, for one, and not at all offended. I totally agree that dogma is less important than experiencing God. However much Christians may have failed to see that, and have turned Christianity into a new kind of legalism, the fact is that the best believers---the Saints---have always known that. So far I think you and I are on the same page. Where we differ, I think, is that I'm saying that dogma can be less important than experiencing God, and yet still also be true. I think it's in his book Mere Christianity that C.S. Lewis compares dogma to a roadmap. The roadmap can't replace the actual countryside, nor can reading the roadmap replace actually driving through the actual countryside. Nevertheless, it's still an accurate guide to the countryside. If Christians insist on doctrine, and they do it in the right way (so not in the legalistic spirit we’re both rejecting), then it's because they believe that we need a roadmap, and that we need a roadmap because the countryside into which we want to travel is so to say God's country, which to a large extent is new to us all. And that's the real issue here, I think: whether everything we need to know about getting around in God's country is already easily available to us, or whether, in addition to what we already know about getting around in God's country, we need some new information, a new roadmap, which we couldn't simply draw up on the basis of what we already know. In other words, the issue of dogma is just the kind of replay of the deeper issue of whether we need something like divine revelation in the sense of God telling us things about himself that we need to know but can't simply figure out on her own.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to convince you of anything, but just trying to say as clearly as I can where I think the real difference of opinion lies.

Dear Adele,

Thank you---you started it after all.

Cordially to all,
Adrian