What do you think?
Rate this book
How (Not) to Speak of God: Marks of the Emerging Church
With sensitivity to the Christian tradition and a rich understanding of postmodern thought, Peter Rollins argues that the movement known as the “emerging church” offers a singular, unprecedented message of transformation that has the potential to revolutionize the theological and moral architecture of Western Christianity. How (not) to Speak of God sets out to explore the theory and praxis of this contemporary expression of faith. Rollins offers a clear exploration of this embryonic movement and provides key resources for those involved in communities that are conversant with, and seeking to minister effectively to, the needs of a postmodern world.
“Here in pregnant bud is the rose, the emerging new configuration, of a Christianity that is neither Roman nor Protestant, neither Eastern nor monastic; but rather is the re-formation of all of them. Here, in pregnant bud, is third-millennium Christendom.” —Phyllis Tickle
“I am a raving fan of the book you are holding. I loved reading it. I have already begun widely recommending it. Reading it did good for my mind and for my soul. It helped me understand my own spiritual journey more clearly, and it gave me a sense of context for the work I’m involved in. In fact, I would say this is one of the two or three most rewarding books of theology I have read in ten years.” —Brian McLaren, from the Foreword
“Here in pregnant bud is the rose, the emerging new configuration, of a Christianity that is neither Roman nor Protestant, neither Eastern nor monastic; but rather is the re-formation of all of them. Here, in pregnant bud, is third-millennium Christendom.” —Phyllis Tickle
“I am a raving fan of the book you are holding. I loved reading it. I have already begun widely recommending it. Reading it did good for my mind and for my soul. It helped me understand my own spiritual journey more clearly, and it gave me a sense of context for the work I’m involved in. In fact, I would say this is one of the two or three most rewarding books of theology I have read in ten years.” —Brian McLaren, from the Foreword
144 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2006
96 people are currently reading
1837 people want to read
About the author
Peter Rollins
17 books314 followersPeter Rollins is a Northern Irish writer, public speaker, philosopher and theologian who is a prominent figure in Postmodern Christianity.
Drawing largely from various strands of Continental Philosophy, Rollins' early work operated broadly from within the tradition of Apophatic Theology, while his more recent books have signaled a move toward the theory and practice of Radical Theology. In these books Rollins develops a "religionless" interpretation of Christianity called Pyrotheology, an interpretation that views faith as a particular way of engaging with the world rather than a way of believing things about the world.
In contrast to the dominant reading of Christianity, this more existential approach argues that faith has nothing to do with upholding a religious identity, affirming a particular set of beliefs or gaining wholeness through conversion. Instead he has developed an approach that sees Christianity as a critique of these very things. This anti-religious reading stands against the actual existing church and lays the groundwork for an understanding of faith as a type of life in which one is able to celebrate doubt, ambiguity and complexity while deepening ones care and concern for the world. As an outspoken critic of “worldview Christianity” he argues that the event which gave rise to the Christian tradition cannot itself be reduced to a tradition, but is rather a way of challenging traditions, rendering them fluid and opening them up to the new. This event cannot then be understood as a religious, cultural or political system, but is a way of life that operates within such systems.
In order to explore and promote these themes Rollins has founded a number of experimental communities such as ikon and ikonNYC. These groups describe themselves as iconic, apocalyptic, heretical, emerging and failing and engage in the performance of what they call 'transformance art' and the creation of "suspended space." Because of their rejection of "worldview Christianity" and embrace of suspended space these groups purposelessly attempt to attract people with different political perspectives and opposing views concerning the existence of God and the nature of the world.
Although Rollins does not directly identify with the emerging church movement,he has been a significant influence on the movement's development. As a freelance speaker and popular writer, Rollins operates broadly outside the walls of an academic institution, and currently lives in Greenwich, Connecticut. His most influential book to date is How (Not) To Speak Of God (2006).
Drawing largely from various strands of Continental Philosophy, Rollins' early work operated broadly from within the tradition of Apophatic Theology, while his more recent books have signaled a move toward the theory and practice of Radical Theology. In these books Rollins develops a "religionless" interpretation of Christianity called Pyrotheology, an interpretation that views faith as a particular way of engaging with the world rather than a way of believing things about the world.
In contrast to the dominant reading of Christianity, this more existential approach argues that faith has nothing to do with upholding a religious identity, affirming a particular set of beliefs or gaining wholeness through conversion. Instead he has developed an approach that sees Christianity as a critique of these very things. This anti-religious reading stands against the actual existing church and lays the groundwork for an understanding of faith as a type of life in which one is able to celebrate doubt, ambiguity and complexity while deepening ones care and concern for the world. As an outspoken critic of “worldview Christianity” he argues that the event which gave rise to the Christian tradition cannot itself be reduced to a tradition, but is rather a way of challenging traditions, rendering them fluid and opening them up to the new. This event cannot then be understood as a religious, cultural or political system, but is a way of life that operates within such systems.
In order to explore and promote these themes Rollins has founded a number of experimental communities such as ikon and ikonNYC. These groups describe themselves as iconic, apocalyptic, heretical, emerging and failing and engage in the performance of what they call 'transformance art' and the creation of "suspended space." Because of their rejection of "worldview Christianity" and embrace of suspended space these groups purposelessly attempt to attract people with different political perspectives and opposing views concerning the existence of God and the nature of the world.
Although Rollins does not directly identify with the emerging church movement,he has been a significant influence on the movement's development. As a freelance speaker and popular writer, Rollins operates broadly outside the walls of an academic institution, and currently lives in Greenwich, Connecticut. His most influential book to date is How (Not) To Speak Of God (2006).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 107 reviews
April 25, 2016
This book was lent to me by the "community mission associate" of my local Anglican parish, a bright young man in charge of organising and promoting their social and cultural action, with whom I have occasionally volunteered. Very vaguely schooled in Catholicism in my early childhood, I cannot call myself Christian in any meaningful sense: my later engagement with the subject came from an interest in the history of ideas, and probably from a certain sensitivity to the aesthetics of religion. More recently I have become very peripherally interested in the relationship between religion and left-wing politics, in part probably because this mixture has so little visibility in the mass-media, and probably also because I feel confusedly it might suggest (indirectly) a way out of the "crisis" of the contemporary left, polarized between identity politics and anachronistic scientism.
Rollins seems to be primarily associated with the "emerging church" movement, which could be summarized as the "post-modern" arm of Christianity. I had heard about it before but imagined a "charismatic/new-agey" collage, of which Rollins thought is in fact relatively free. His proposal is interesting and manages to ground its deconstructive approach within the Christian tradition, rather than bringing it from without, thus maintaining a certain coherence.
The book is very accessible despite dealing in paradox and brushing complex philosophical and theological concepts, and Rollins is both a good writer and a likeable character, and has a gift for inventing parables. Although most of his project relies on transgressing and questioning the boundaries of accepted Christianity, and I believe the text would be as appealing to an "outsider" like me as it could be to an open-minded believer. In this day and age when "new atheism" seems often to act as an "get out of the religious-question free" card, I think I might well buy the book to lend it to friends, because as an easy and swift read (140 pages) it is an ideal example of what religious thought can be today, as far away from the the dawkinian "reductio ad westborum"...
Rollins' project is constructed around a deconstruction of the Christian binaries: so he picks a number of distinctions which he feels steer Christianity away from radical agapism and into institutional repression, and proceed, with the occasional biblical reference and borrowings from the theological tradition, to propose a "third way":
The world cannot be considered meaning-less precisely because this would ascribe it a meaning, but the meaning of the world is bound to elude human understanding, or at least cannot be grasped in its entirety: similarly he engages in a critique of God's "presence", prefering instead the notion of its "hyper-presence" (Rollins is given to very occasional bouts of jargon-coining) – in other words, the divine is always over-flowing, it cannot be grasped in its entirety by anyone, and as such any understanding and any doctrine is no more than one partial view-point among many others. The tendency to consider one doctrine as capturing God's presence in its entirety he refers to as "conceptual idolatry". Revelation "can thus be described as bringing to light the secret of God in such a way that it remains secret" (17) – with this hermeneutical imperative he proceeds to re-define Truth as being transformative rather than descriptive, that is to say, as to be evaluated on the basis of its effect on the world (that's one of the bits that appeal to my secular mind). Since it cannot be grasped, God must then be conceived of as subject rather than object, thus avoiding its instrumentalisation. "God is not a theoretical problem to somehow resolve but rather a mystery to be participated in" (22).
What comes next is probably Rollins "big move" which I find interesting, despite the usual trappings of deconstruction: he rejects the distinction between belief and atheism.. To him all Christians are also atheists inasmuch as they are plagued by doubt, and he encourages them rather than reject doubt as devilish, to embrace it as part of the human condition, and a pre-requisite for any meaningful commitment. The love of God, subsequently, is felt because of his absence because love is desire/longing rather than static self-fulfilment. Doubt is also "a type of heat-inducing friction that prevents our liquid images of the divine from cooling and solidifying into idolatrous forms" (27). Obviously this tends to dilute any sense of the Church as the "mystical body of Christ" and thus, as with many of his ideas, to defer or destroy the possibility of Christianity as a political force. On an individual level, however, this opens the door for some exciting conceptions, such as his take on evangelisation, which is described as a dialogue between differing beliefs, rather than an attempt at converting anyone.
All this deconstruction he grounds largely in the apophatic tradition, which had been identified before as a potential analogy to post-modernism by Marion or Vattimo, and he finds in many images of the great mystics and the Church Fathers examples of his rejection of "conceptual idolatry" and of the fundamental impossibility to grasp God as such. A lot the usual dogma, which to an unbeliever such as me, does a lot to push down Christianity into folklore rather than relevant thought, he rejects without much discussion, which I would imagine might make some believer uncomfortable: life after death, for example, is waved away because it turns Christian living into a "bargain" rather than an unconditional act of love (47). Similarly miracles, although not rejected directly, are present in his narrative only as one way the Church has attempted to legitimize its authority. I think the questions of the supernatural could lead to meaningful interrogations of the scientific epistemology, but that would probably have taken him too far away from his project.
The second half of the book largely abandons theoretical considerations and instead examines ten "services" set up by Rollins in Belfast, for a community called "Ikon". Ikon seems to put in practice much of the theories he has just described, and does not meet in a church but in a pub, and those evenings might have easily appeared to the unattentive hear for an indie-gig. There is a mixture of pop-music, djs, poetry readings and a liturgy that look more like performance art than anything else. I wont go into details, but although the concepts each service attempts to illustrate, lifted from the first half of the book, are quite appealing, I suspect the "DIY" aesthetics in which Rollins revel might be a little self-indulgent (DIY is rarely as unself-conscious as it claims to be) and as such might foster a "counter-cultural" sense of community which flies in the face of the deconstruction he has just propounded.
This takes us to the downsides of his approach: the rejection of tradition, paradoxically, I suspect to dampen the (political) transformative potential of such an approach. This is an issue with much "prefigurative" movements in radical politics as well: by isolating yourself into a ideal community you are bound to isolate your group. You loose much incentive for collective political action, and create an artificial divide between "the world at large" and your little utopia. Tradition could maybe allow for more historical consciousness.
Similarly Rollins' insistent refusal of faith as a "place of comfort" (God's absence make faith anything but enjoyable) also make it fundamentally elitist. When I visit my local church, I can tell many of the attendants indeed find solace in their faith, and I can also tell that for some this might be the only solace they find. I doubt depriving them from this solace would suffice to bring them to political action: there is another form of education which is needed for that, and that is something which Rollins' project leave completely out of the picture.
Finally, there is also the occasional sleight of hands that practitioners of deconstruction can rarely resist permanently (his "transfinite reading" (60) for example, seems like a rather dubious escape from relativism) – but on the whole I am happy I read this book. It will give me arguments in my defence of religion as a potentially progressive force, and it broadened my understanding of concepts I thought I understood. It's a great, accessible example of both post-modern thought, and creative Christianity.
Rollins seems to be primarily associated with the "emerging church" movement, which could be summarized as the "post-modern" arm of Christianity. I had heard about it before but imagined a "charismatic/new-agey" collage, of which Rollins thought is in fact relatively free. His proposal is interesting and manages to ground its deconstructive approach within the Christian tradition, rather than bringing it from without, thus maintaining a certain coherence.
The book is very accessible despite dealing in paradox and brushing complex philosophical and theological concepts, and Rollins is both a good writer and a likeable character, and has a gift for inventing parables. Although most of his project relies on transgressing and questioning the boundaries of accepted Christianity, and I believe the text would be as appealing to an "outsider" like me as it could be to an open-minded believer. In this day and age when "new atheism" seems often to act as an "get out of the religious-question free" card, I think I might well buy the book to lend it to friends, because as an easy and swift read (140 pages) it is an ideal example of what religious thought can be today, as far away from the the dawkinian "reductio ad westborum"...
Rollins' project is constructed around a deconstruction of the Christian binaries: so he picks a number of distinctions which he feels steer Christianity away from radical agapism and into institutional repression, and proceed, with the occasional biblical reference and borrowings from the theological tradition, to propose a "third way":
The world cannot be considered meaning-less precisely because this would ascribe it a meaning, but the meaning of the world is bound to elude human understanding, or at least cannot be grasped in its entirety: similarly he engages in a critique of God's "presence", prefering instead the notion of its "hyper-presence" (Rollins is given to very occasional bouts of jargon-coining) – in other words, the divine is always over-flowing, it cannot be grasped in its entirety by anyone, and as such any understanding and any doctrine is no more than one partial view-point among many others. The tendency to consider one doctrine as capturing God's presence in its entirety he refers to as "conceptual idolatry". Revelation "can thus be described as bringing to light the secret of God in such a way that it remains secret" (17) – with this hermeneutical imperative he proceeds to re-define Truth as being transformative rather than descriptive, that is to say, as to be evaluated on the basis of its effect on the world (that's one of the bits that appeal to my secular mind). Since it cannot be grasped, God must then be conceived of as subject rather than object, thus avoiding its instrumentalisation. "God is not a theoretical problem to somehow resolve but rather a mystery to be participated in" (22).
What comes next is probably Rollins "big move" which I find interesting, despite the usual trappings of deconstruction: he rejects the distinction between belief and atheism.. To him all Christians are also atheists inasmuch as they are plagued by doubt, and he encourages them rather than reject doubt as devilish, to embrace it as part of the human condition, and a pre-requisite for any meaningful commitment. The love of God, subsequently, is felt because of his absence because love is desire/longing rather than static self-fulfilment. Doubt is also "a type of heat-inducing friction that prevents our liquid images of the divine from cooling and solidifying into idolatrous forms" (27). Obviously this tends to dilute any sense of the Church as the "mystical body of Christ" and thus, as with many of his ideas, to defer or destroy the possibility of Christianity as a political force. On an individual level, however, this opens the door for some exciting conceptions, such as his take on evangelisation, which is described as a dialogue between differing beliefs, rather than an attempt at converting anyone.
All this deconstruction he grounds largely in the apophatic tradition, which had been identified before as a potential analogy to post-modernism by Marion or Vattimo, and he finds in many images of the great mystics and the Church Fathers examples of his rejection of "conceptual idolatry" and of the fundamental impossibility to grasp God as such. A lot the usual dogma, which to an unbeliever such as me, does a lot to push down Christianity into folklore rather than relevant thought, he rejects without much discussion, which I would imagine might make some believer uncomfortable: life after death, for example, is waved away because it turns Christian living into a "bargain" rather than an unconditional act of love (47). Similarly miracles, although not rejected directly, are present in his narrative only as one way the Church has attempted to legitimize its authority. I think the questions of the supernatural could lead to meaningful interrogations of the scientific epistemology, but that would probably have taken him too far away from his project.
The second half of the book largely abandons theoretical considerations and instead examines ten "services" set up by Rollins in Belfast, for a community called "Ikon". Ikon seems to put in practice much of the theories he has just described, and does not meet in a church but in a pub, and those evenings might have easily appeared to the unattentive hear for an indie-gig. There is a mixture of pop-music, djs, poetry readings and a liturgy that look more like performance art than anything else. I wont go into details, but although the concepts each service attempts to illustrate, lifted from the first half of the book, are quite appealing, I suspect the "DIY" aesthetics in which Rollins revel might be a little self-indulgent (DIY is rarely as unself-conscious as it claims to be) and as such might foster a "counter-cultural" sense of community which flies in the face of the deconstruction he has just propounded.
This takes us to the downsides of his approach: the rejection of tradition, paradoxically, I suspect to dampen the (political) transformative potential of such an approach. This is an issue with much "prefigurative" movements in radical politics as well: by isolating yourself into a ideal community you are bound to isolate your group. You loose much incentive for collective political action, and create an artificial divide between "the world at large" and your little utopia. Tradition could maybe allow for more historical consciousness.
Similarly Rollins' insistent refusal of faith as a "place of comfort" (God's absence make faith anything but enjoyable) also make it fundamentally elitist. When I visit my local church, I can tell many of the attendants indeed find solace in their faith, and I can also tell that for some this might be the only solace they find. I doubt depriving them from this solace would suffice to bring them to political action: there is another form of education which is needed for that, and that is something which Rollins' project leave completely out of the picture.
Finally, there is also the occasional sleight of hands that practitioners of deconstruction can rarely resist permanently (his "transfinite reading" (60) for example, seems like a rather dubious escape from relativism) – but on the whole I am happy I read this book. It will give me arguments in my defence of religion as a potentially progressive force, and it broadened my understanding of concepts I thought I understood. It's a great, accessible example of both post-modern thought, and creative Christianity.
January 19, 2015
The main idea I gleaned from the book is that we should never be overconfident in our own picture of God, because any picture we create is by nature an idol. Rather than worshipping an idol of our own creation, we should be allowing God to constantly surprise us and refresh our ideas of who he is and what he is like. Rollins also advocates Christians calling ourselves “heretics” since we can’t possibly have everything right when it comes to God.
May 24, 2008
Rollins has a wonderful understanding of philosophy and theology, which he really puts to use in forming a robust way of believing that can be honest, self-critical, loving, and worshipful at the same time.
Basically the book is set up into two parts. Part 1 consists of five chapters of explanations and explorations of ideas that are seemingly polar opposites, but in fact are necessary balances to each other. He thrives on contradiction and the tension when two extremes are held tightly.
All of this is geared towards opening up our ideas of God and theology in order to embrace the often confusing, hidden, and powerful mystery that we call "God". For example, he talks about a/theism as a way of believing in God. We need to be atheists at the same time we are theists. In saying this, he is not advocating the rejection of God, but for us to affirm God while at the same time denying our idea of God as containing God. In other words, we have to be careful that our idea of God isn't just a projection of ourselves or our desires. This takes seriously critiques from Nietzsche, Freud, and Marx, while at the same time exploring traditional understandings of God as holy and wholly other.
Other ideas that he proposes are: that God is hidden while at the same time revealed, that as we seek God, we are finding him, that we need to face and challenge God, especially when we have doubts and keep faith not for any other reason but because God is.
Part 2 of the book explains the rationale and general outlines of services, if they can be called that, at Ikon, his community in Belfast, Northern Ireland. Ikon meets once a month at a dingy bar on Sunday evenings and involves performance art, poetry, readings, and other kinds of creative expressions centered around certain faith themes. People are encouraged to explore their faith and their misconceptions of what it means to be a believer and follower of Christ. Like the theology in Part 1 of this book, the services of Part 2 are centered on exploring contradictions and challenging the members to "become Christian".
This whole book, at first glance, could be taken as a bunch of emerging church heresy and philosophical mumbo-jumbo. However, Rollins gives clear explanations of what he's trying to do, and he centers his quest in the prophetic tradition of the Hebrew prophets, the apophatic theology of the Eastern Church, Christian mysticism a la Meister Eckhart, and especially the upside-down kingdom of God that Jesus preached. What really holds this book together for me is the underlying critique it proposes for all of us, believer and unbeliever, conservative and liberal, Catholic and Protestant. This critique and questioning while at the same time embracing the ineffable mystery of God is a healthy medicine for all of us who claim to be followers of Christ.
I'd highly recommend this book to any person, Christian, non-Christian, semi-Christian, or atheist. I wish this book were around about 7 years ago when I was going through lots of faith and doubt struggles.
Basically the book is set up into two parts. Part 1 consists of five chapters of explanations and explorations of ideas that are seemingly polar opposites, but in fact are necessary balances to each other. He thrives on contradiction and the tension when two extremes are held tightly.
All of this is geared towards opening up our ideas of God and theology in order to embrace the often confusing, hidden, and powerful mystery that we call "God". For example, he talks about a/theism as a way of believing in God. We need to be atheists at the same time we are theists. In saying this, he is not advocating the rejection of God, but for us to affirm God while at the same time denying our idea of God as containing God. In other words, we have to be careful that our idea of God isn't just a projection of ourselves or our desires. This takes seriously critiques from Nietzsche, Freud, and Marx, while at the same time exploring traditional understandings of God as holy and wholly other.
Other ideas that he proposes are: that God is hidden while at the same time revealed, that as we seek God, we are finding him, that we need to face and challenge God, especially when we have doubts and keep faith not for any other reason but because God is.
Part 2 of the book explains the rationale and general outlines of services, if they can be called that, at Ikon, his community in Belfast, Northern Ireland. Ikon meets once a month at a dingy bar on Sunday evenings and involves performance art, poetry, readings, and other kinds of creative expressions centered around certain faith themes. People are encouraged to explore their faith and their misconceptions of what it means to be a believer and follower of Christ. Like the theology in Part 1 of this book, the services of Part 2 are centered on exploring contradictions and challenging the members to "become Christian".
This whole book, at first glance, could be taken as a bunch of emerging church heresy and philosophical mumbo-jumbo. However, Rollins gives clear explanations of what he's trying to do, and he centers his quest in the prophetic tradition of the Hebrew prophets, the apophatic theology of the Eastern Church, Christian mysticism a la Meister Eckhart, and especially the upside-down kingdom of God that Jesus preached. What really holds this book together for me is the underlying critique it proposes for all of us, believer and unbeliever, conservative and liberal, Catholic and Protestant. This critique and questioning while at the same time embracing the ineffable mystery of God is a healthy medicine for all of us who claim to be followers of Christ.
I'd highly recommend this book to any person, Christian, non-Christian, semi-Christian, or atheist. I wish this book were around about 7 years ago when I was going through lots of faith and doubt struggles.
May 27, 2013
How do I rate a book in which the author, while confessing anti-abstractionism, claims a level of epistemic certainty (a level that he decries in others, by the way) based on his own abstractions? Well, I begrudgingly give the book one star while wishing that Goodreads allowed me to give the book negative stars.
April 27, 2011
A thought provoking book. I've quite taken to Peter Rollins recently. I appreciate his ability to tell a great story, to tell old parables in new ways that reveal the original meaning freshly, or even to construct new parables to go away and mull over. He has made me think deeply about what I believe and how I believe.
This book comes in two parts. The opening section explores the (un)knowability of God (can't recall if he used that exact phrase). We can know God in that he has revealed himself to us, but at the same we cannot truly comprehend or understand him as our knowledge is bounded and coloured by our finiteness, our prejudices, the restrictions of language and our experiences. Alongside this challenge to our habitual thinking that we've got God wrapped up, Rollins also challenges us to rethink belief. He says it is less important to believe the right things (because of the above) but more important to believe in the right way; such a way that is transformational.
The second section of the book explores services that the church community Ikon have explored these concepts. Although I wouldn't want to simply lift these for my own setting, I found the reading of them to be stimulating, and I suspect will spur me on in the pursuit of creativity in worship.
This was a great read. A bit wordy perhaps at times - but this is inevitable with the subject matter that he is dealing with. Recommended.
This book comes in two parts. The opening section explores the (un)knowability of God (can't recall if he used that exact phrase). We can know God in that he has revealed himself to us, but at the same we cannot truly comprehend or understand him as our knowledge is bounded and coloured by our finiteness, our prejudices, the restrictions of language and our experiences. Alongside this challenge to our habitual thinking that we've got God wrapped up, Rollins also challenges us to rethink belief. He says it is less important to believe the right things (because of the above) but more important to believe in the right way; such a way that is transformational.
The second section of the book explores services that the church community Ikon have explored these concepts. Although I wouldn't want to simply lift these for my own setting, I found the reading of them to be stimulating, and I suspect will spur me on in the pursuit of creativity in worship.
This was a great read. A bit wordy perhaps at times - but this is inevitable with the subject matter that he is dealing with. Recommended.
July 29, 2018
I (dis)agree with Peter Rollins. The introduction and the first chapter are worth a read, but the rest is an exploration into religionless Christianity that seeks to de-stabilize identity and ground the individual in the absence of God. I think Jamie Smith did it better in his summation of Charles Taylor, mainly because Smith is still a church man who believes in the activations of the liturgy to transform who we are into the likeness of Christ. Most of what Rollins does here is just a capitulation to secularity in such a way that it just turns into modernity-light, not nearly radical enough for the times. Or, if you’d like, a series of performance “art” liturgies that are really condescending and perversions of the gospel readings. I do not recommend this book to the casual reader, only to those who seek to see how those who have appropriated Bonhoeffer’s later work and twisted it into irrelevance.
March 8, 2018
I really enjoyed this book (have read it twice now), and I love it's particular blend of apophatic theology and poststructuralism. If you read this and enjoy it, you must follow it with 'The Fidelity of Betrayal,' which works out its implications very helpfully.
Want to read
January 30, 2012I've made it about a couple of chapters in and I have to confess I may just not be smart enough to get this.
October 20, 2017
Heresy in top form. Absolutely amazing. Rollins challenges & exhorts readers to truly love God & others through exploring what Christianity is, with creativity and depth that is nothing short of a gift.
March 25, 2013
This is a book that I've always kind of wanted to read and just never got around to. Thankfully it was recently on sale on Amazon, so I downloaded it.
I am glad I finally did. It is a great book that asks many questions, provides a few answers but all-in-all makes you think. For those who, like me, grew up in an evangelical subculture that was quite certain we had the correct and proper theology, this book may be challenging. Rollins pokes holes in this sort of certainty. He argues that when we speak of God we never really speak of God, but instead speak of our idea of God. If we assume our idea of God corresponds to the reality of God, then we have an idol.
From this, Rollins argues that revelation of God is not to remove concealment, as is usually thought, but instead that in revelation God is known as the unknown. He writes, "We are like an infant in the arms of God, unable to grasp but being transformed by the grasp."
Later he says, "God is not a theoretical problem to somehow resolve but rather a mystery to be participated in." Much theology I have learned in my life, from Sunday school to seminary and in books and blogs, has tended to try to define God. The goal, it appears, was to figure out God the same way one might figure out a math or science problem. Rollins way here is much more interesting (and biblical). It is the difference between analyzing your loving wife and going on an adventure with her.
Overall this would be a great read for Christian pastors and leaders, or anyone who is becoming disillusioned with faith. The second part, where Rollins illustrates ten different services at the community he is a part of in Ireland is interesting in itself, as he shows how his theory in the first part plays out in community. With a little translation into a different context, there are good ideas here for worship gatherings.
I am glad I finally did. It is a great book that asks many questions, provides a few answers but all-in-all makes you think. For those who, like me, grew up in an evangelical subculture that was quite certain we had the correct and proper theology, this book may be challenging. Rollins pokes holes in this sort of certainty. He argues that when we speak of God we never really speak of God, but instead speak of our idea of God. If we assume our idea of God corresponds to the reality of God, then we have an idol.
From this, Rollins argues that revelation of God is not to remove concealment, as is usually thought, but instead that in revelation God is known as the unknown. He writes, "We are like an infant in the arms of God, unable to grasp but being transformed by the grasp."
Later he says, "God is not a theoretical problem to somehow resolve but rather a mystery to be participated in." Much theology I have learned in my life, from Sunday school to seminary and in books and blogs, has tended to try to define God. The goal, it appears, was to figure out God the same way one might figure out a math or science problem. Rollins way here is much more interesting (and biblical). It is the difference between analyzing your loving wife and going on an adventure with her.
Overall this would be a great read for Christian pastors and leaders, or anyone who is becoming disillusioned with faith. The second part, where Rollins illustrates ten different services at the community he is a part of in Ireland is interesting in itself, as he shows how his theory in the first part plays out in community. With a little translation into a different context, there are good ideas here for worship gatherings.
February 21, 2015
Actually, 4 1/2. Much better than the other two books I have read on the subject, the ideas appeal to me, and much better descriptions of the services of the Ikon Community. However, I have a feeling, no matter how well these services are described, "you sort of have to be there."
April 17, 2020
Engaging, profound, disturbing, liberating (pick your adjective[s]). The description and outlining of 10 progressive church services in part II are a brilliant exploration of the themes developed in part I. I would have liked to be present at these.
December 8, 2021
The central and most helpful premise in Rollins’ book for me is the redefinition of orthodoxy from “believing the right thing” to “believing in the right way.” He sets this up at the beginning of part 1: “Instead of following the Greek-influenced idea of orthodoxy as right belief, these chapters show that the emerging community is helping us to rediscover the more Hebraic and mystical notion of the orthodox Christian as one who believes in the right way—that is believing in a loving, sacrificial, and Christlike manner.” (p.2-3) This resonates so strongly with my theological development.
I grew up in a fundamentalist community where living by a particular purity code was a survival skill. While I left that hermeneutic and worldview a long time ago, I’ve experienced the very same tendency in both more progressive Christian communities and liberal political spaces. The bullet points of the purity code are different, but the way of holding those beliefs is the same—an inflexible posture of absolutism that creates gatekeepers intent on policing the correct boundaries and punishing violators with separation and shunning.
While I think that some of my more progressive beliefs are more in line with both the teaching and example of Jesus, I’ve been quite disturbed by the way many progressive communities continue to practice their beliefs in ways that are power-driven, exclusionary, and self-righteous. Rollins suggests we won’t find the solution to this problem by moving more left or more right on the binary of liberal/conservative, but by moving off the line entirely. To be like Jesus is not simply to hold a certain set of doctrinal propositions as God’s Revealed Will and then live according to a certain moral code identified as Holy. It is to practice both our beliefs and behaviors in a way that is marked by Jesus’ kind of other-centered co-suffering love.
The second most helpful idea was entirely new to me. This is the distinction Rollins makes between infinite and transfinite. One of the primary critiques of various progressive hermeneutics is that any kind of subjectivity in our understanding of the text eventually leads us to nihilism. If we can’t maintain that the Bible is fully inspired and inerrant, objectively correct in all ways, we begin the inexorable slide toward the Bible meaning anything anyone wants it to mean and thus meaning nothing at all. I’ve intuitively rejected this criticism, even though I believe that the Bible is largely a human book, expressing human interactions and understandings of God that naturally reflect temperament, culture, and preconceptions of the human writers. I still hold the Bible as an authoritative expression of the Word of God and don’t believe that it can rightly be made to say anything at all. But with the Infinite/Transfinite distinction,
Rollins offers a way to support this view based on something more than gut sense in this passage:
“In order to answer this, we need to reflect upon two important concepts—the ‘transfinite’ and the ‘infinite.’ Infinity is a term used to describe a set of numbers that never ends, while the transfinite signals the infinite range of numbers that exist between finite numbers…While we must acknowledge that the Bible holds such a breadth of meaning that it can be read in a never-ending number of ways, this does not mean it can be read in an infinite number of ways. To return to the example of an artwork, a painting can be read in multiple ways, but there are limits to the range of legitimate interpretations one can have. For instance, an image of two people embracing cannot be legitimately thought of as an image of war. In this way a piece of art has a transfinite set of interpretations rather than an infinite set of interpretations. The same goes with the Bible. While people will understand the phrase ‘God is love’ differently, depending on their cultural context, it cannot be legitimately understood as a call to hate or do violence to others. So then, acknowledging that we all get God wrong and that revelation can be interpreted in a variety of ways does not necessarily mean that we are caught in the tentacles of relativism, but rather can open up a dynamic, kinetic relationship with a text.” (p. 60-61)
For me, this underscores the absolute necessity of a Jesus-centered, love-defined, incarnational hermeneutic, both in our reading of scripture and in the images of God that we extract from scripture as a result.
I grew up in a fundamentalist community where living by a particular purity code was a survival skill. While I left that hermeneutic and worldview a long time ago, I’ve experienced the very same tendency in both more progressive Christian communities and liberal political spaces. The bullet points of the purity code are different, but the way of holding those beliefs is the same—an inflexible posture of absolutism that creates gatekeepers intent on policing the correct boundaries and punishing violators with separation and shunning.
While I think that some of my more progressive beliefs are more in line with both the teaching and example of Jesus, I’ve been quite disturbed by the way many progressive communities continue to practice their beliefs in ways that are power-driven, exclusionary, and self-righteous. Rollins suggests we won’t find the solution to this problem by moving more left or more right on the binary of liberal/conservative, but by moving off the line entirely. To be like Jesus is not simply to hold a certain set of doctrinal propositions as God’s Revealed Will and then live according to a certain moral code identified as Holy. It is to practice both our beliefs and behaviors in a way that is marked by Jesus’ kind of other-centered co-suffering love.
The second most helpful idea was entirely new to me. This is the distinction Rollins makes between infinite and transfinite. One of the primary critiques of various progressive hermeneutics is that any kind of subjectivity in our understanding of the text eventually leads us to nihilism. If we can’t maintain that the Bible is fully inspired and inerrant, objectively correct in all ways, we begin the inexorable slide toward the Bible meaning anything anyone wants it to mean and thus meaning nothing at all. I’ve intuitively rejected this criticism, even though I believe that the Bible is largely a human book, expressing human interactions and understandings of God that naturally reflect temperament, culture, and preconceptions of the human writers. I still hold the Bible as an authoritative expression of the Word of God and don’t believe that it can rightly be made to say anything at all. But with the Infinite/Transfinite distinction,
Rollins offers a way to support this view based on something more than gut sense in this passage:
“In order to answer this, we need to reflect upon two important concepts—the ‘transfinite’ and the ‘infinite.’ Infinity is a term used to describe a set of numbers that never ends, while the transfinite signals the infinite range of numbers that exist between finite numbers…While we must acknowledge that the Bible holds such a breadth of meaning that it can be read in a never-ending number of ways, this does not mean it can be read in an infinite number of ways. To return to the example of an artwork, a painting can be read in multiple ways, but there are limits to the range of legitimate interpretations one can have. For instance, an image of two people embracing cannot be legitimately thought of as an image of war. In this way a piece of art has a transfinite set of interpretations rather than an infinite set of interpretations. The same goes with the Bible. While people will understand the phrase ‘God is love’ differently, depending on their cultural context, it cannot be legitimately understood as a call to hate or do violence to others. So then, acknowledging that we all get God wrong and that revelation can be interpreted in a variety of ways does not necessarily mean that we are caught in the tentacles of relativism, but rather can open up a dynamic, kinetic relationship with a text.” (p. 60-61)
For me, this underscores the absolute necessity of a Jesus-centered, love-defined, incarnational hermeneutic, both in our reading of scripture and in the images of God that we extract from scripture as a result.
September 4, 2021
What an interesting read!
This is the most provocative and thought-provoking book I've ever read.
Grateful for the opportunity to stretch my Christian beliefs and find new edges to grow.
It's not for the faint of heart or for the rigidly religious; it is for the individual (of any faith and of no faith) who is interested in self-examination and self-reflection.
Author Brian D. McLaren (in the forward) describes the focus of this book as "Christian theology being done in a postmodern context." He describes the author of this book as "doing the serious work of theology while rooted more in a faith community than in an academic institution."
If you are open to learning something different than you have believed up until this point, Rollins may be the author for you!
Quotes I loved -
"Speaking of God in Northern Ireland has too often fomented distrust and prejudice, not peace and reconciliation; speaking of God has too often been part of the problem, not of the solution. (p. vii)
"If we find ourselves offended or disturbed by elements of the Ikon services, we might ask ourselves whether the disruption of a disturbing liturgy is necessary at times to arouse people like us from the religious slumbers that so frequently overtake us - like the bizarre characters in a Flannery O'Connor novel or short story, for example - to jolt us into the realization that we routinely tolerate the intolerable in the ways we speak of God" (Brian D. McLaren)
". . . colonizing the 'name' of God with concepts . . . ."
". . . the brutality of words . . . believing the right way . . . God's omni-nameability . . . theism, atheism, antitheism, and a/theism . . . hyper-presence . . . the God-shaped hole . . . consumption and condemnation . . . a transfinite set of interpretations . . . the emergent conversation . . . the emergent community"
"Each time I returned to the horns of this dilemma, I found myself drawn to the Christian mystics (such as Meister Eckhart), for a while they did not embrace total silence, they balked at the presumption of those who would seek to colonize the name 'God' with concepts. Instead of viewing the unspeakable as that which brings all language to halt, they realized that the unspeakable was precisely the place where the most inspiring language began. This God whose name was above every name gave birth, not to a poverty of words, but to an excess of them. And so they wrote elegantly concerning the limits of writing and spoke eloquently about the brutality of words. By speaking with wounded words of their wounded Christ, these mystics helped to develop, not a distinct religious tradition, but rather a way of engaging with and understanding already existing religious traditions: seeing them as a loving response to God rather than a way of defining God."
(p. xii)
And, referencing both "the wisdom of those who would say that God is unspeakable and must therefore be passed over in silence, and the wisdom of those who would say that God can, and must, be expressed" Rollins describes "That which we cannot speak of is the one thing about who and to whom we must never stop speaking."(p. xii)
". . . our God-talk fails to define who or what God is." (p. xiii)
". . . how the rediscovery of mystery, doubt, complexity, and ambiguity in faith helps us come to a more appropriate understanding of the religious desire . . . ." (p. xiii)
"In faith we are held, in theology we hold." (p. 2)
"The argument is made that naming God is never really naming God but only naming our understanding of God. To take our ideas of the divine and hold them as if they correspond to the reality of God is thus to construct a conceptual idol built from the materials of our mind." (p. 2)
"While one affirms the supremacy of their God in an implicitly exclusive and violent way, the other reduces faith to a purely immanent ethical system." (p. 2)
“Instead of religious discourse being a type of drink designed to satisfy our thirst for answers, Jesus made his teaching salty, evoking thirst. Instead of offering a scientific explanation that would convince, or publicizing the miracles so as to compel his listeners, Jesus engaged in a poetic discourse that spoke to the heart of those who would listen. In a world where people believe they are not hungry, we must not offer food but rather an aroma that helps them desire the food that we cannot provide. We are a people who are born from a response to hints of the divine. Not only this, but we must embrace the idea that we are also called to be hints of the divine.”
This is the most provocative and thought-provoking book I've ever read.
Grateful for the opportunity to stretch my Christian beliefs and find new edges to grow.
It's not for the faint of heart or for the rigidly religious; it is for the individual (of any faith and of no faith) who is interested in self-examination and self-reflection.
Author Brian D. McLaren (in the forward) describes the focus of this book as "Christian theology being done in a postmodern context." He describes the author of this book as "doing the serious work of theology while rooted more in a faith community than in an academic institution."
If you are open to learning something different than you have believed up until this point, Rollins may be the author for you!
Quotes I loved -
"Speaking of God in Northern Ireland has too often fomented distrust and prejudice, not peace and reconciliation; speaking of God has too often been part of the problem, not of the solution. (p. vii)
"If we find ourselves offended or disturbed by elements of the Ikon services, we might ask ourselves whether the disruption of a disturbing liturgy is necessary at times to arouse people like us from the religious slumbers that so frequently overtake us - like the bizarre characters in a Flannery O'Connor novel or short story, for example - to jolt us into the realization that we routinely tolerate the intolerable in the ways we speak of God" (Brian D. McLaren)
". . . colonizing the 'name' of God with concepts . . . ."
". . . the brutality of words . . . believing the right way . . . God's omni-nameability . . . theism, atheism, antitheism, and a/theism . . . hyper-presence . . . the God-shaped hole . . . consumption and condemnation . . . a transfinite set of interpretations . . . the emergent conversation . . . the emergent community"
"Each time I returned to the horns of this dilemma, I found myself drawn to the Christian mystics (such as Meister Eckhart), for a while they did not embrace total silence, they balked at the presumption of those who would seek to colonize the name 'God' with concepts. Instead of viewing the unspeakable as that which brings all language to halt, they realized that the unspeakable was precisely the place where the most inspiring language began. This God whose name was above every name gave birth, not to a poverty of words, but to an excess of them. And so they wrote elegantly concerning the limits of writing and spoke eloquently about the brutality of words. By speaking with wounded words of their wounded Christ, these mystics helped to develop, not a distinct religious tradition, but rather a way of engaging with and understanding already existing religious traditions: seeing them as a loving response to God rather than a way of defining God."
(p. xii)
And, referencing both "the wisdom of those who would say that God is unspeakable and must therefore be passed over in silence, and the wisdom of those who would say that God can, and must, be expressed" Rollins describes "That which we cannot speak of is the one thing about who and to whom we must never stop speaking."(p. xii)
". . . our God-talk fails to define who or what God is." (p. xiii)
". . . how the rediscovery of mystery, doubt, complexity, and ambiguity in faith helps us come to a more appropriate understanding of the religious desire . . . ." (p. xiii)
"In faith we are held, in theology we hold." (p. 2)
"The argument is made that naming God is never really naming God but only naming our understanding of God. To take our ideas of the divine and hold them as if they correspond to the reality of God is thus to construct a conceptual idol built from the materials of our mind." (p. 2)
"While one affirms the supremacy of their God in an implicitly exclusive and violent way, the other reduces faith to a purely immanent ethical system." (p. 2)
“Instead of religious discourse being a type of drink designed to satisfy our thirst for answers, Jesus made his teaching salty, evoking thirst. Instead of offering a scientific explanation that would convince, or publicizing the miracles so as to compel his listeners, Jesus engaged in a poetic discourse that spoke to the heart of those who would listen. In a world where people believe they are not hungry, we must not offer food but rather an aroma that helps them desire the food that we cannot provide. We are a people who are born from a response to hints of the divine. Not only this, but we must embrace the idea that we are also called to be hints of the divine.”
July 15, 2019
This book is an excellent and fitting sequel to Rollins' The Idolatry of God. This book artfully and provocatively explores how we replace the infinite God with finite conceptions, and replace the life Jesus offers through "The Way" with ideas. But Rollins doesn't stop there, but offers ways to get back to the living and active Truth offered in Christianity. All throughout, Rollins offers these incredible terms and phrases that provocatively tease at their excess of meaning - words like "hypernymity" (rather than anonymity, God's revelation is so full and profound that it overwhelms us and shrouds God in mystery as God is revealed). After the first half of the book, where Rollins discusses concepts, he offers practical liturgies in the second half that tease at profound meaning. One of my favorites was the satirical "Prosperity" service, where by the end of the service, the leaders are stuffing themselves with cake and drinking champagne as the body and blood of Christ. Along with this, a satirical parable is offered where Jesus and the disciples have piles of loaves and fishes, rather than the meager 5 loaves and 2 fishes, and rather than passing out the food the disciples stuff their faces and amazingly (in a dramatic anti-miracle), there is nothing left over for the people. This cuts right to the heart of the matter with the Western church and prophetically exposes its selfish excesses - and it is a much needed reflection.
November 11, 2019
This is, without a doubt, the most important theology book I have read in a very long time.
Over the past several years, I have been a fan of Rollins' guest appearances on The RobCast, have listened to The Fundamentalists podcast since episode 1, and read The Idolatry of God: Breaking Our Addiction to Certainty and Satisfaction in late 2014. Somehow, I missed How (Not) to Speak of God until now.
What a revelation this work is. Through How (Not) to Speak of God I understand that much of what I have seen as my recent struggle of faith is actually growth in my spiritual journey.
How (Not) to Speak of God is a book in two parts. Part 1 presents the theological/philosophical discussions happening within the emerging church. Rollins has an astounding ability to present complex concepts in approachable ways. His excellent storytelling is one of the tools he employs to help readers apply what we are processing to our own thinking.
In essence, Rollins argues that "deconstruction" is not destruction, but a new way of approaching faith that is honest and authentic in the 21st century. He is also careful to root his thinking in historical thought. For example, references to Anselm and Augustine appear regularly.
I am especially fond of Rollins' re-framing of orthodoxy from "believing the right things" to "believing in the right way," and his understanding of mystery not as the counter to faith, but an essential part of it.
In part 2, Rollins shares some of the ways his Ikon community put these ideas into worship gatherings held at a pub. His descriptions illustrate how the Church might help people grow in their faith by approaching the very real struggles and thinking of 21st century human beings. I was jealous of those who attend these gatherings.
While not an easy read, How (Not) to Speak of God is well worth the time and effort of anyone who takes their faith seriously, yet struggles with church as usual.
Over the past several years, I have been a fan of Rollins' guest appearances on The RobCast, have listened to The Fundamentalists podcast since episode 1, and read The Idolatry of God: Breaking Our Addiction to Certainty and Satisfaction in late 2014. Somehow, I missed How (Not) to Speak of God until now.
What a revelation this work is. Through How (Not) to Speak of God I understand that much of what I have seen as my recent struggle of faith is actually growth in my spiritual journey.
How (Not) to Speak of God is a book in two parts. Part 1 presents the theological/philosophical discussions happening within the emerging church. Rollins has an astounding ability to present complex concepts in approachable ways. His excellent storytelling is one of the tools he employs to help readers apply what we are processing to our own thinking.
In essence, Rollins argues that "deconstruction" is not destruction, but a new way of approaching faith that is honest and authentic in the 21st century. He is also careful to root his thinking in historical thought. For example, references to Anselm and Augustine appear regularly.
I am especially fond of Rollins' re-framing of orthodoxy from "believing the right things" to "believing in the right way," and his understanding of mystery not as the counter to faith, but an essential part of it.
In part 2, Rollins shares some of the ways his Ikon community put these ideas into worship gatherings held at a pub. His descriptions illustrate how the Church might help people grow in their faith by approaching the very real struggles and thinking of 21st century human beings. I was jealous of those who attend these gatherings.
While not an easy read, How (Not) to Speak of God is well worth the time and effort of anyone who takes their faith seriously, yet struggles with church as usual.
March 17, 2018
I like Rollins' blend of philosophy/theology/poetry/provocative insight quite a bit. The first half of this book is a combination of all those elements, particularly dealing with our idolatrous obsession with our own "ideas" of God. It's deeply insightful, disturbing at points (in a good way), and just well-written all around. If you are a disillusioned evangelical, or a philosophically-minded skeptic, or somewhere in-between, I think this section of the book will speak to you. If you are a fundamentalist, then this will probably infuriate you, but maybe that's a good thing too....
The second half of the book, while still helpful, was simply not as exciting to read through. Rollins has compiled a collection of 10 different 'Ikon' services that he has put together for his community in Ireland. Each includes a short description of the philosophical/theological basis for the service, as well as an overview of the practices. Some are uncomfortable, most are interesting, but it's not the challenging joy that the first half is.
The second half of the book, while still helpful, was simply not as exciting to read through. Rollins has compiled a collection of 10 different 'Ikon' services that he has put together for his community in Ireland. Each includes a short description of the philosophical/theological basis for the service, as well as an overview of the practices. Some are uncomfortable, most are interesting, but it's not the challenging joy that the first half is.
July 17, 2017
A lot of good nuggets in this one. Here are a few of my favorites:
"What is important about revelation is not that we seek to interpret it in the same way but rather that we all love it and are transformed by it. To fail to recognize this would be similar to an art critic saying that what is important when considering a piece of art is that we interpret it correctly rather than loving it and being challenged by it."
"If theology comes to be understood as the place where God speaks, then we must seek, not to speak of God, but rather to be that place where God speaks."
"...religious truth is thus that which transforms reality rather than that which describes it."
"The truth in Christianity is not described but experienced... In other words, Truth is God and having knowledge of the Truth is evidenced, not in a doctrinal system, but in allowing that Truth to be incarnated in one's life."
"What is important about revelation is not that we seek to interpret it in the same way but rather that we all love it and are transformed by it. To fail to recognize this would be similar to an art critic saying that what is important when considering a piece of art is that we interpret it correctly rather than loving it and being challenged by it."
"If theology comes to be understood as the place where God speaks, then we must seek, not to speak of God, but rather to be that place where God speaks."
"...religious truth is thus that which transforms reality rather than that which describes it."
"The truth in Christianity is not described but experienced... In other words, Truth is God and having knowledge of the Truth is evidenced, not in a doctrinal system, but in allowing that Truth to be incarnated in one's life."
September 14, 2011
Peter Rollins is one of the few figures from Europe to feature prominently on the American emerging church scene. Touted by prominent emergents like Brian McLaren and Phyllis Tickle and befriended by the crown prince, Rob Bell, Rollins has made a big splash internationally in the last five years. How (Not) To Speak Of God was published in 2006 and was Rollins’ first book.
The book is split into two parts. Part 1 (Heretical Orthodoxy: From Right Belief To Believing In The Right Way) is a deconstruction of much of traditional orthodoxy and an attempt by Rollins to redefine thought processes as regards to Christian ideologies and historical efforts to classify God in doctrines. Part 2 (Towards Orthopraxis: Bringing Theory To Church) engages the reader with short outlines of 10 different ‘Ikon’ (Rollins’ community) services. Part 2 is, “designed to offer some examples of how one group has explored, within a liturgical context, the theory discussed in Part 1”. This approach allows the reader to practically examine via the description given how ‘Ikon’ put these theories into practice, and also to further confirm/deny held opinions on their validity that may have been formed during the reading of Part 1.
In Part 1, Rollins begins to deconstruct how we speak of God. His overall message is that the subject, 'God', is simply so infinite and incomprehensible that the language we use to discuss God must recognise its own limitations. Rollins suggests that ‘The language of faith is at its best when it both remembers its profound limitations and simultaneously places us in a clearing within which we can be addressed by God. ’
Rollins uses examples such as 'revelation as concealment' - "the overpowering light that renders God known as unknown" - to reinforce his claims. In this Rollins suggests that God and his revelations are in fact so enormous that while we are aware of them and affected by them, part of that awareness is realising we cannot grasp the enormity of them. Another example is that of 'hypernymity'. "…anonymity offers too little information...hypernymity gives us far too much information. Instead of being limited by the poverty of absence we are short-circuited by the excess of presence". So it is the very presence of God that stops us from truly realising the presence of God.
Practically, Rollins has designed his book superbly. His chapters and sub-headings are often labelled in the forms of paradoxes designed to challenge ideologies and while this is a clever idea it can prove puzzling to wrap one’s head around. By offering Part 2 as a practical engagement with his theories, Rollins better enables the reader to not only understand his theology more clearly, but also to get an insight into Rollins’ own personal journey with it.
Theologically, it’s hard to argue with Rollins’ deconstruction of Christian thought in order to make it realise the futility of itself. Not that we should not speak of God, but as he says, "That which we can never speak of is the one thing about whom and to whom we must never stop speaking" . His concept of a/theology supports this well, that we must still speak of God, even while we recognise that this speech fails to define God. This reinforces what Rollins borrows from earlier Christian thinkers like Justin Martyr and Origen, 'the danger of reducing God to a reflection of human rationality' .
My main criticism of How (Not) To Speak Of God is its statements about emergent theology processes being superior to other lines of thought. I understand Rollins' view of emerging theology as 'an emerging discourse acknowledges that speaking of God is never speaking of God but only ever speaking about our understanding of God,' and can see how this lends itself to a sense of superiority about emergent theological processes/ideologies being 'right'. How can it not be right when it is concerned with how we can never be right in our constructs regarding God? However, the irony of deconstructing conservative and liberal ideologies only to trumpet his own should not be lost.
Rollins also offers some practical examples in Part 2 that reject Christian teaching to a point perhaps beyond mere deconstruction of words and into deconstruction of Christ himself. In Eloi, eloi, lama sabachthani, Rollins argues that we need to sit in Easter Saturday to assess whether we follow Jesus regardless of his resurrection or if it's for our benefits alone. That assessment misses the point that Jesus' entire being was for us. His resurrection was the fulfilment of all his teachings and prophecies. Without that resurrection he wouldn't be worthy of Messianic/Christ status. He would be Gandhi-esque - a wonderful teacher, but merely a man. His resurrection was the final confirmation of his godhood. By trying to separate death and resurrection, Rollins is separating the man Jesus from Jesus as God. He continues to deconstruct unnecessarily in Prodigal, suggesting that 'only those who truly desire God can know what it is to serve God' . How are these people to be defined? Rollins also makes judgments within his deconstructions in Prosperity that leans more towards emergent practices than emergent theology and ignores thousands of years of tradition and millions of personal testimonies of drawing nearer to God.
Overall, How (Not) To Speak Of God is a creative, enlightening example of emergent theology. Rollins' wish to deconstruct takes him past the boundaries of challenging Christian ideologies occasionally and those are the few moments that lets the book down. The overall premise - that we must continue to speak of God whilst also acknowledging the inherent inadequacies in our ability to do so - is a profound message, even if it raises more questions than it answers.
I think Rollins probably rather enjoys that.
The book is split into two parts. Part 1 (Heretical Orthodoxy: From Right Belief To Believing In The Right Way) is a deconstruction of much of traditional orthodoxy and an attempt by Rollins to redefine thought processes as regards to Christian ideologies and historical efforts to classify God in doctrines. Part 2 (Towards Orthopraxis: Bringing Theory To Church) engages the reader with short outlines of 10 different ‘Ikon’ (Rollins’ community) services. Part 2 is, “designed to offer some examples of how one group has explored, within a liturgical context, the theory discussed in Part 1”. This approach allows the reader to practically examine via the description given how ‘Ikon’ put these theories into practice, and also to further confirm/deny held opinions on their validity that may have been formed during the reading of Part 1.
In Part 1, Rollins begins to deconstruct how we speak of God. His overall message is that the subject, 'God', is simply so infinite and incomprehensible that the language we use to discuss God must recognise its own limitations. Rollins suggests that ‘The language of faith is at its best when it both remembers its profound limitations and simultaneously places us in a clearing within which we can be addressed by God. ’
Rollins uses examples such as 'revelation as concealment' - "the overpowering light that renders God known as unknown" - to reinforce his claims. In this Rollins suggests that God and his revelations are in fact so enormous that while we are aware of them and affected by them, part of that awareness is realising we cannot grasp the enormity of them. Another example is that of 'hypernymity'. "…anonymity offers too little information...hypernymity gives us far too much information. Instead of being limited by the poverty of absence we are short-circuited by the excess of presence". So it is the very presence of God that stops us from truly realising the presence of God.
Practically, Rollins has designed his book superbly. His chapters and sub-headings are often labelled in the forms of paradoxes designed to challenge ideologies and while this is a clever idea it can prove puzzling to wrap one’s head around. By offering Part 2 as a practical engagement with his theories, Rollins better enables the reader to not only understand his theology more clearly, but also to get an insight into Rollins’ own personal journey with it.
Theologically, it’s hard to argue with Rollins’ deconstruction of Christian thought in order to make it realise the futility of itself. Not that we should not speak of God, but as he says, "That which we can never speak of is the one thing about whom and to whom we must never stop speaking" . His concept of a/theology supports this well, that we must still speak of God, even while we recognise that this speech fails to define God. This reinforces what Rollins borrows from earlier Christian thinkers like Justin Martyr and Origen, 'the danger of reducing God to a reflection of human rationality' .
My main criticism of How (Not) To Speak Of God is its statements about emergent theology processes being superior to other lines of thought. I understand Rollins' view of emerging theology as 'an emerging discourse acknowledges that speaking of God is never speaking of God but only ever speaking about our understanding of God,' and can see how this lends itself to a sense of superiority about emergent theological processes/ideologies being 'right'. How can it not be right when it is concerned with how we can never be right in our constructs regarding God? However, the irony of deconstructing conservative and liberal ideologies only to trumpet his own should not be lost.
Rollins also offers some practical examples in Part 2 that reject Christian teaching to a point perhaps beyond mere deconstruction of words and into deconstruction of Christ himself. In Eloi, eloi, lama sabachthani, Rollins argues that we need to sit in Easter Saturday to assess whether we follow Jesus regardless of his resurrection or if it's for our benefits alone. That assessment misses the point that Jesus' entire being was for us. His resurrection was the fulfilment of all his teachings and prophecies. Without that resurrection he wouldn't be worthy of Messianic/Christ status. He would be Gandhi-esque - a wonderful teacher, but merely a man. His resurrection was the final confirmation of his godhood. By trying to separate death and resurrection, Rollins is separating the man Jesus from Jesus as God. He continues to deconstruct unnecessarily in Prodigal, suggesting that 'only those who truly desire God can know what it is to serve God' . How are these people to be defined? Rollins also makes judgments within his deconstructions in Prosperity that leans more towards emergent practices than emergent theology and ignores thousands of years of tradition and millions of personal testimonies of drawing nearer to God.
Overall, How (Not) To Speak Of God is a creative, enlightening example of emergent theology. Rollins' wish to deconstruct takes him past the boundaries of challenging Christian ideologies occasionally and those are the few moments that lets the book down. The overall premise - that we must continue to speak of God whilst also acknowledging the inherent inadequacies in our ability to do so - is a profound message, even if it raises more questions than it answers.
I think Rollins probably rather enjoys that.
October 15, 2016
This book seized my attention for a couple of reasons. First, it comes highly recommended by Phyllis Tribble and Brian McLaren, two of the leaders of and prime commentators on the Emergent Church movement. Their praise for Rollins, a theologian and pastor in Northern Ireland, carries some weight for me due to how much I've gotten out of their books. Second, it's quite rare to find in any era of the church such a clear work primarily based on apophatic theology, that is, a theology based on the concept of God's ultimate unknowability. Generally speaking, one must turn to Meister Eckhardt or John of the Cross for such ideas and their mystical approach is far from easy reading.
Rollins' work here is not EASY reading either but it is clear and understandable. His challenge to modern/postmodern Christians to grapple with God as unknowable is welcome in an age where propositional faith has lost its grip on the imaginations of the post-Boomer generations (and more than a few Boomers, as well). Rollins' thoughtful theories on "heretical orthodoxy" and "a/theist theology" are accompanied by brief descriptions of how he and his congregation (Ikon) work these theories out in worship. The result is a book that is both highly stimulating to thought and grounded in the nitty-gritty of pastoral work. This combination is all too rare and, like Rollins' reminder of "another way" of doing theology, very welcome.
Rollins' work here is not EASY reading either but it is clear and understandable. His challenge to modern/postmodern Christians to grapple with God as unknowable is welcome in an age where propositional faith has lost its grip on the imaginations of the post-Boomer generations (and more than a few Boomers, as well). Rollins' thoughtful theories on "heretical orthodoxy" and "a/theist theology" are accompanied by brief descriptions of how he and his congregation (Ikon) work these theories out in worship. The result is a book that is both highly stimulating to thought and grounded in the nitty-gritty of pastoral work. This combination is all too rare and, like Rollins' reminder of "another way" of doing theology, very welcome.
July 16, 2020
I really loved this book...at first I thought it might be somewhat outdated given that the term 'emergent church' seems to have disappeared in the last few years. But not so. I liked the author's vision of faith and belief....'The reversal from 'right belief' to 'believing in the right way', ...'Thus orthodoxy is no longer (mis)understood as the opposite of heresy but rather is understood as a term that signals a way of being in the world rather than a means of believing things about the world.' This understanding of the concept is rather simple, but profound at the same time. The ten services described in the second half of the book were very moving. As another friend said, 'how I would have loved to be part of them'.
February 12, 2021
Do you want to know why this book is worth reading? Read the comments and reviews. There is something important to notice. Look at what the people write that love this book and those that hate this book. Patterns quickly emerge from each sphere and it suggests a lot about this book. I hate generalizing people but the reviews are right here and the patterns are obvious. Think about it a few minutes and it is easy to conclude why this book is worth reading. I would like to also suggest Peter is one of the most important voices in postmodern philosophy and Christianity right now. It is obvious he loved God fiercely and dynamically. And this is a love letter to God and his creation- in a way only Pete could write it.
September 9, 2020
I had placed high expectations on this book because of how high the ratings were. I couldn’t get past the second chapter in part one or part two. Maybe I’m just too uneducated, but the wording makes me feel like someone replaced all the simple words with synonyms that are not used on a daily basis and a small percentage of people would understand. I recommend reading the first chapter or two before purchasing the book to get a good feel for whether you will enjoy it or not.
July 21, 2022
By questioning the "a/theism" of Christianity, Rollins puts forth a way of practicing religion that feels new and exciting. I don't feel as if this model would appeal to the masses, but the model he presents has merits to help some who have become disappointed in the Christianity they are accustomed to.
December 29, 2019
A great read, though the second half is mostly stories from "the orthodox heretic" employed at Ikon services. If you've read that, you may find the second half of the book less novel, but still challenging and worthwhile.
March 10, 2021
ProtoPete
This was a great read. I came to this book after reading many of rollins’ other works. It was cool to see his ideas in their infancy. And others I hope he picks back up to further explore.
This was a great read. I came to this book after reading many of rollins’ other works. It was cool to see his ideas in their infancy. And others I hope he picks back up to further explore.
April 10, 2018
First section good! Second section boring.
August 6, 2018
Great book for enlightened thinking into a new, radical approach to Christianity.
August 19, 2018
Basically, knowledge is unknowable and God is unfindable and irrelevant. Everything is relative, so just enjoy the experience. Absolute garbage.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 107 reviews