Peter Rollins’ Book

In his book How Not To Speak of God, Peter Rollins takes a very philosophical approach to explaining the theology of many emerging church leaders. Rollins continually draws from the lives of medieval Christian mystics in order to argue that the Hebraic worldview of “believing in the right way” is a better approach to theology than the current Greek worldview of “having right belief” (2-3). His argument is nothing new in the field of philosophy or theology, but what I most appreciate about his argument is that it is constructed in a philosophical manner which elicits a useful argument (whether agreeable or not) that one can easily point out. This is how Rollins differs from other emerging authors because he provides logical argumentation backed by evidence of scripture. His book is not the mere ranting of a passionate, uneducated Church leader.

What is somewhat disagreeable in his argument is his constant call-back to the medieval mystic Christians. The context of the time really made the mystics what they were, but I do not agree that they provide the best model for Christian living in a postmodern context. The lives of the mystics were elevated in popularity amongst the people because the mystics were dealing with issues which many of the church leaders were not, one of them being the black plague. The main church leaders were heading off into the hills with the other healthy people in order to avoid catching the black death while many of the mystics stayed amongst the sick, performing radical actions such as sucking the puss from people’s wounds and placing their face in their sores. These are some extreme examples, but none-the-less performed by Rollins’ excellent mystics. The educated had all run away and all who were left leading the Christian front were these Christian mystics. Even after the plague, some of the few remaining mystics performed weird actions of locking themselves in rooms for the rest of their lives or taking wild pilgrimages to holy locations. The problem with the mystics is that their faith was based more on emotion than on the Word of God. And we all know that zeal without knowledge is not the best of things.

What is agreeable in Rollins’ argument is that he leaves room for what I call “the ambiguity of God.” Rollins argues that theology is good for creating a general idea of who God is, but it can never draw a definitive boundary as to where God ends. We can never put God in a box so-to-speak. God has revealed certain characteristics about himself through scripture, but scripture does not tell us everything who God is starting with A and ending with Z. Now this can become dangerous as others may argue that other religions fill in some of those letters leading to Z, but any good thinker will discover that this line of thought leads to pluralism, which is never condoned in the Bible. There is a reason the prophets spoke so many times to Israel and her surrounding peoples concerning the worship of false gods.

Finally, I was forced to retire my reading of Rollins’ book somewhat early when I stepped into the second half, that being his practical application. Emergent leaders are so concerned with making the Bible “relevant,” which could also be interpreted as “impressive.” “Art” has all of a sudden become a buzzword among churches resulting in services being done in such an abstract fashion as to impress people as to how “artistic” the church can be in relating the message of Christ. But I ask, what are they relating by stamping the name “Judas” on every person who walks in through the door, having them dip their hand in a bowl of wine, and then giving them a small pouch with a Judas nametag on their way out in order to remind them that they are like Judas many times in life. That’s the most important lesson of them all is it not? Has teaching the grace of Christ become so dull? Or perhaps it is not impressive enough, or has been done too many times and has therefore lost its originality. Then again, I could possibly see Christ stamping “whore” on the forehead of the prostitute or “gimp” on the forehead of the paralytic so why should a certain church not stamp “Judas” on everyone else’s?

Preach the Word of God so simply that people may easily understand it, and let God worry about whether it is impressive or not.