How (Not) To Speak Of God

This is the latest in a string of Peter Rollins books that I have read. I began three months ago with “The Orthodox Heretic”, then last month I read his new book “Insurrection”, and presently I have just finished his first book “How (Not) To Speak Of God”.

Peter writes postmodern/emergent theology, or as he would call it a/theology. I have been thoroughly enjoying his creativity that leads to his conclusions, specifically the use of theology and philosophy in parallel to arrive at similar conclusions yet respecting their differences. Alongside this, there is creative story telling and logical anti-logic. He sharply critiques modern thought with thorough deconstruction, constantly drawing on the greats of Freud, Nietzsche, and Marx.

“How (Not) To Speak Of God” will be the reason Rollins will continue to have a voice in the emergent conversation. I have not read a book like it before. It was unapologetically idealistic. It was refreshing to leave behind pragmatic arguments and semantics and to chart a radical new course. Though I liked the first two books I read, this book had me on the edge of my seat (probably to the annoyance of my roommates who experienced the book through my retelling). The book is deeply rooted in the apophatic Christian tradition in an attempt to move beyond belief to a new understanding of belief.

Here are some of my favourite segments/quotes:

“We were hungry and you gave us nothing to eat…Silence descended upon all of creation as the people pronounced their judgement on God.”

“For now, al we can comfort ourselves with is the possibility that the God we accuse is a God of our own creation. It is for this reason that Slavoj Zizek claims that the God we think we can understand is like a Tamagochi toy – our own creation which subsequently makes demands upon us.”

“Not only is Christianity atheistic insomuch as it rejects ideas of God which stand opposed to those found in its own tradition (the early Christians were called atheists because of their rejection of those deities worshiped by the Romans), but also there is a sense in which Christianity is atheistic because it rejects its own understanding of God.”

Context: acts of love - trying to understand how to truly give a gift.

“Here we are presented with three criteria for the perfect, loving gift – that is, one that we would not use in order to get a reward: (1) ther receiver does not know that he or she has been given a gift; (2) nothing is actually given; and (3) the giver does not know he or she has given anything.”

Reading from left to right. Orthodoxy = right belief. Orthopraxis =  right practice. No read it right to left. Orthodoxy = believing in the right way. Orthopraxis = practicing in the right way. “This means that the question, “what do you believe?” must also be accompanied by the question “How do you believe”.”

“speaking of God is never speaking of God but only ever speaking about our understanding of God”

“the Christian God destroys the idea of immanence and transcendence as opposite points in a diffuse spectrum, replacing this with the idea that immanence and transcendence are one and the same point.”

If that has sparked your interest, go read the book. I do not think it will disappoint.