Peter Rollins is my hero…
Rollins thinks in a way that you cannot learn to think, his brain and his interactions with the world are unique. I think I love this more than anything else of his that I’ve yet encountered. Thanks Peter - fully expect LOTS of us to steal your words.
PeterRollins.net » Blog Archive » My Confession: I deny the Resurrection
Without equivocation or hesitation I fully and completely admit that I deny the resurrection of Christ. This is something that anyone who knows me could tell you, and I am not afraid to say it publicly, no matter what some people may think…I deny the resurrection of Christ every time I do not serve at the feet of the oppressed, each day that I turn my back on the poor; I deny the resurrection of Christ when I close my ears to the cries of the downtrodden and lend my support to an unjust and corrupt system.
However there are moments when I affirm that resurrection, few and far between as they are. I affirm it when I stand up for those who are forced to live on their knees, when I speak for those who have had their tongues torn out, when I cry for those who have no more tears left to shed.
Related posts:
- Advent Reflections: Day 8, first day week 2 Ps. 72:1-7, 18-19 Ro. 15:4-13 (Is. 11:1-10, Mt. 3:1-12) Romans...
- so do you really KNOW?… please indulge me in a little soul spew here. I...
- Christ is Risen image credit Christ is Risen Indeed! Blogged with the...
- Notable Quotable: Henri Nouwen on the Body of Christ photo courtesy of zen♫♪ “It is the parts of...
- treasure of the poor Courtesy of Henri Nouwen The poor have a treasure to...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
- Posted by Mak at 04:29 pm
- Permalink for this entry
- Filed under: Spirituality, quotes, theology
- RSS comments feed of this entry
- TrackBack URI
Here’s thing about rollins though… I think his use of rhetoric is powerful, but I wonder if the effect would still stand if he tagged on something at the end to say: of course the resurrection did happen. A statement like that could very well serve to elevate the resurrection in our theology and discourse, however I also see some taking it as license to play fast and loose with it… In other words, I’m not saying Rollins intends for that to happen, only that once you make a statement like that, you are kind of unintentionally opening a Pandora’s box.
no, I think Rollins is INTENTIONALLY opening a pandora’s box. And if someone is going to play fast and loose with the resurrection they won’t need Rollins’ permission. A statement like that loses it’s effect if you qualify it. I understand your fear but I don’t really share it.
I was there in the room when he said it…and as it is with just about everything Rollins says his primary concern is to put the place of belief in its rightful place. True belief is lived out in all of its radical implications. As it has been with the previous administration…you can’t say something over and over again and expect it to be true. If it’s not lived out then it can’t be true no matter how much you say you believe it.
[...] world. My time unplugged does mean I’m a little behind the eight ball in sharing this one, (Makeesha is right - lots of us will steal Peter’s words) but I loved Pete Rollins’ words here and thought [...]
Ed, you don’t think that his statements about affirming the resurrection don’t speak for themselves about whether or not Peter believes the resurrection happened? I think that when you do elevate the place of the resurrection in the way he does here, I actually feel almost makes nonsense of the idea of questioning the reality of the resurrection.
Geoff and Mak,
All I’m saying, as someone who knows that readers can misunderstand and take statements out of context, is that I think some readers may take Rollins to mean that Resurrection isn’t essential. That is obviously not what he’s saying. Yes, he’s obviously trying to inseparably link orthodoxy and orthopraxy. It’s a powerful, wonderfully orthodox idea.
He rings of James saying that faith without works is dead and can’t save us. I’m not worried about Rollins, I’m worried that people will not catch on to the way he’s trying to “elevate” this event/reality. I think it’s very likely that people could extrapolate, incorrectly I add, that the only thing that truly matters is living the resurrection. The event didn’t have to happen at all. We need both the event and the living reality today, which I think is Rollin’s point.
Perhaps the core disagreement here is how we express our beliefs. I suppose I should just leave the rhetoric to Rollins the philosopher. It would break my heart if, in the process of trying to uphold the resurrection, I left room for someone to think I was devaluing it.
I think that just shows how we’re all different Ed
I really wouldn’t care if I said something and someone thought I didn’t value the resurrection…that’s they’re issue to take up with me…they have to own that themselves, I can’t fix it for them.
…but I’m not a pastor
can ya tell why? hehe
I think what I heard you saying is that Rollins shouldn’t have said that - - and that kind of talk makes me grumpy. But if you’re just saying that you wouldn’t put it that way for fear of someone valuing the resurrection less after hearing your words…then that’s cool, like I said, we’re all different.
But were I able to think and speak like Rollins, I would have no problem saying what he said
One example of my own rhetorical device failing…
Proposition 8 was the hot topic so I wrote a brief note saying that if we really cared about protecting marriage we should ban divorce. I thought I was pretty clearly making an overstatement to make my point about the gay marriage debate, but soon I was getting messages about why banning divorce would be terrible…
That’s just where I’m coming from.
May we all continue to find fresh ways to express our faith and to challenge one another into the deepest implications of the resurrection!
Which was a historical event by the way!
Sorry, couldn’t resist.