How (not) to speak about God by Peter Rollins – chp 3

[Here are the links for each of the 5 chapters of Peter Rollins' book: Chapter 1  Chapter 2  Chapter 3  Chapter 4  Chapter 5 ] 

Rollins calls chapter three, “A/theology as icon.”  “A/theology” is not theology, which deals in humanly constructed paradigms, nor is it atheology, which is the absence of theological reflection.  It is rather to embrace the way that God transcends any attempt to capture him theologically–i.e., through human theological reflection.  This chapter deals largely with “words,” or our attempts to capture God through literary tools.  Here are some excerpts:

“Those within the emerging conversation find unity not by a type of cloning by which all Christians are encouraged to believe the same thing, thus forming one master denomination, but amidst denominational diversity” (32).

“In order to express this [a/theology], we must engage in a type of fractured discourse as evidenced by Jesus in the opening words of the Lord’s Prayer” (32).  By this he means that though Jesus called God “Father,” calling his name “hallowed,” means that any and all attempts to define God are impossible (32-33).

“Only a genuine faith can embrace doubt, for such a faith does not act because of a self-interested reason (such as fear of hell or desire for heaven) but acts simply because it must.  A real follower of Jesus would commit to him before the crucifixion, between the crucifixion and the resurrection, and after the resurrection” (34).

“[The apostle Paul] constantly refrains from resting his faith on wise words or the miraculous, instead endeavouring to create a space for the ‘Spirit’s power’ to arrive, a power that is not compelled by human might or miraculous wonder.  Unlike the traditional mode of preaching, which seeks to persuade and clarify, this discourse maintains the object of communication as obscure and unobjectifiable” (36).

“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 we cannot provide” (37).

“To treat something as an icon is to view particular words, images or experiences as aids in contemplation of that which cannot be reduced to words, images or experiences.  Not only this, but the icon represents a place where God touches humanity” (38).

“In contrast to the view that evangelism is that which gives an answer for those who are asking, we must have faith to believe that those who seek will find for themselves” (40).

“Central to this approach is the idea that God stands outside our language regimes and cannot be colonized via any power discourse” (41).

In other words, this chapter removes the foundation for any and all theology (32), apologetics (35), and evangelism (40).  All of these endeavors are human attempts to communicate spiritual reality by means of words to others.  Rather, we seek kinds of “icons,” which are symbolic words and images and experiences which reveal something, but always with the understanding that God is beyond all description.   Of course, these are all themes we have already encountered in Rollins’ book.

So much comes to mind by way of response to this, but perhaps looking at the sermons of the book of Acts make some sense.  These are places where the Christ-appointed messengers, those most closely connected to the Lord himself and his message, are engaged in the very tasks that Rollins is discussing.  According to Rollins the apostolic communicators should use the means of metaphor, experience, and various spiritual disciplines to get a gospel-hunger into those around them.  Their actual approach is a worldview away from this.

Instead, from the first sermon of Acts (Peter in 2:17-36), we get a consistent pattern of a clear articulation of the important historical and biblical facts of Jesus Christ.  This “Jesus of Nazareth” is portrayed as sent from God (2:22), ordained to suffer for our sins (2:23), raised by the power of God (2:24, 29-32), coming as the fulfillment of specific OT Scriptures (2:25-29), and is called “both Lord and Christ” (2:36).  Peter’s future sermons are cut from this same cloth (e.g., 10:34f).

In Stephen’s speech (chp. 7), outlining the work of God throughout the centuries, and landing at the present where the religious elite have rejected God’s Messiah, we find this same attachment to explanation, to history, to the Scriptures, and especially to Jesus Christ.  In fact, Stephen is giving us theology in the service of evangelism and apologetics.

Yet, because Rollins discusses the apostle Paul, perhaps it would be that Paul in reaching the pagan Gentiles with all of their mystery religions and attachment to ecstasy would adopt a different approach.  But, again we are disappointed.

Paul famously rehearses salvation history in chapter 17, beginning with God as Creator, introducing the person of Adam, expressing clearly that an idol cannot contain him, that a future day of judgment is coming to all mankind, and that the one resurrected from the dead gives assurance of this future righteous judgment.  And when Paul in chp 22, 24, and 26, tells his story, he deals in the historical facts of his own testimony, and the testimony of Jesus Christ.  His discourse is the very kind of “persuasion” that Rollins seems to think is antithetical to the gospel.

Further, does Paul’s practice differ from what he exhorts others to do?  It would appear not.  After expressing in the strongest terms to Timothy WHY he is to do it, Paul says that the subject matter and concern of this minister of the gospel is the following: “preach the word” (2 Tim 4:2).  Sound doctrine (1 Tim 4:16) is to be Timothy’s priority.  This assumes that this teaching can be understood, and that it can be passed along to others (2 Tim 2:2).  Obviously, there is no understanding without the illumination of the Holy Spirit, but nowhere in the Scripture do we find that God’s transcendance and infiniteness (true as these are) are fundamentally opposed to us understanding something of the Godhead and salvation and issues of righteousness and sin, eternity and heaven, etc.  Surely, sin has falsely colored these in our minds, but once a person is converted and given the Holy Spirit, it is clear that this person is now able to understand something of God and the theology revealed in the Scriptures.  Complete knowledge is never held out to us, but true and foundational knowledge most certainly is.

Further, while Rollins’ appeal to a higher kind of faithfulness to Christ, one indifferent to heaven and hell, or even the resurrection, one that is best expressed as faithfulness to the Christ of the crucifixion-only, has the “aroma” of a higher love or fidelity, it must also be seen as opposed to the teaching of Jesus Christ.  Certainly, if Rollins means a love of heaven that is indifferent to the Christ of heaven, then he is right.  But, appeals toward heaven and away from hell, toward gaining treasure in heaven, toward the joys we experience in the resurrected Jesus, all of these are solid biblical motivations in the Scriptures (e.g., Matt 5:19-21, 25-33; 7:13-14; etc.). 

So, once again we are faced with an apparent choice between the Bible’s revelation and understanding of the Christian life, and Rollins’.  In the face of such a choice, we must — always! — side with the Bible.  Whether something appears more spiritual, impressive, mysterious, intelligent, or interesting, we must always see it as one of a myriad counter-religions to the gospel of the Bible.  Rollins is a modern example, but perhaps no different from the neo-orthodoxy of the past that drifted to atheism, or all theological compromises that land ultimately in the quicksand of atheism.  One hopes that Rollins will himself steer this ship in a different direction, especially with the growing influence that seems to be having.