Rollins, Peter - Insurrection

[Hans Deventer]

To acknowledge my bias: I'm a fan. I like how he doesn't try to solve life's mysteries in one big system, nor tries to figure out God but rather keeps mystery, doubt and unknowing alive.

He gives an introduction to the book himself:

.

But who is Peter Rollins? From his website:

Peter Rollins is a widely sought after writer, lecturer, storyteller and public speaker. He is also the founder of ikon, a faith group that has gained an international reputation for blending live music, visual imagery, soundscapes, theatre, ritual and reflection to create what they call ‘transformance art’.

Peter gained his higher education from Queens University, Belfast and has earned degrees (with distinction) in Scholastic Philosophy (BA Hons), Political Theory (MA) and Post-Structural thought (PhD). He is currently a research associate with the Irish School of Ecumenics in Trinity College, Dublin and is the author of the much talked about How (Not) to Speak of God. His most recent work is entitled The Orthodox Heretic and Other Impossible Tales. He was born in Belfast but currently resides in Greenwich, CT and is employed by The Olson Foundation.

Actually, this book is his latest work.

Some quotes:

We have a deep-seated longing to confirm our desire for an ordered universe: a universe that makes sense, a universe in which we are special, valued, and eternal. And on top of it all, like the child who rationalizes her behavior, we have a deep desire to convince ourselves that we believe for reasons other than mere psychological need. Hence we will often seek out evidence to support the already existing belief and then pretend that our belief arose from the evidence. But the result is a faith that exists only at the very margins of our life, a faith that only has something to offer when we feel depressed, or scared, or when we face death. But what if someone actually enjoys life and embraces it? God as a psychological crutch would seem to have nothing to offer at all. The only option left for the apologist who is confronted by someone who actually enjoys life is to attempt to show that they are really in denial and crying out for this God in a disavowed way. If they cannot succeed in convincing the happy person that they are really unhappy, then they have nothing left to offer and must reject them as one caught up in rebellion, deception, and defiance.

It is easy for us to take the experience of God’s absence as a rejection of God’s presence and either celebrate it or bemoan it, depending upon one’s position. But a properly Christological reflection should lead us to see the felt experience of God’s absence as the fundamental way of entering into the presence of God. For if being a Christian involves participating in the Crucifixion, then it means undergoing this earth-shattering loss. While various religious systems provide a place for this painful experience of unknowing (as a test, as something to endure, or something to overcome), in Christianity when one is crushed by a deep, existential loss of certainty, one finds oneself in Christ.

We are able to talk passionately about the dark night of the soul without feeling it as long as the worship songs are full of light, the sermons lay bare all mysteries, and the prayers treat God as an object there to tell us it’s all going to be OK.

let us imagine a worship leader coming in one Sunday and performing songs that express doubt, anger, and a sense of divine abandonment. In a healthy congregation, people would be able to enter into the honesty expressed in the music, allowing it to bring them into closer proximity with the reality of the Cross. However, if it were to evoke a deep anxiety in the congregation, then we glimpse how the regular worship at the Church is acting as a security blanket, protecting the congregation from a psychological confrontation with the Cross.

The endless courses on apologetics, triumphalist music, confident prayers, and sermons of certainty don’t necessarily reflect the beliefs of the people offering them or receiving them. But everyone participates regardless, because they protect us from facing up to the anxieties of our existence. In this way much of the contemporary Church resembles a drug that prevents us from facing up to the suffering and difficulty that is part of life.

[Hans Deventer]

I posted this review on Amazon:

Where do you go when you sacrifice God as a psychological crutch? When you join Christ in his moment of despair? And what does the resurrection mean in such a context? Peter Rollins tries to erase all the layers that religion has created and delves for the experience on which we created the Christian religion. Scary stuff! For who among us can or does live like that? Not too many, is my guess. So while reading this book, you're trying to hold on tight, only to be told that what you are holding on, is pretty much what you should let go. I've wondered is he isn't trying to describe crisis experience known in Wesleyan theology, but he'd probably say he's aiming for a deeper way still.
You may or may not be willing to follow. But in either case the questions he raises demand answers. If it is true that unchallenged faith is no faith, then it's totally worth it to put your faith through this trial. Recommended!

[Ryan Scott]

This is probably the most important book I have ever read. I don't say that lightly. I've read all of Rollins' other works, which are provocative and intelligent, but often difficult to interpret and understand. Insurrection is written is wonderful prose and while it is deep (I had to re-read many paragraphs several times), it is clear and straight-forward. Rollins presents faith in terms of two events - the crucifixion and resurrection - claiming that life is meant to be lived in the re-living of those two events. As each chapter began, I found myself unsure if I could go with Rollins to the places he leads, but ultimately, each time, I found myself in a place of familiarity - not that I had been there before, but simply that it felt right. His words are always challenging and often uncomfortable, but he speaks of faith and freedom and purpose in ways that are fresh and exciting. We, as Christians, need to hear these words. I believe this book provides an amazing framework for transformative engagement in the world.

It likely also provides the best explanation of holiness for a post-modern world that I've read (also the only one that has, thus far, resonated or made sense in any way).

[Hans Deventer]

This is probably the most important book I have ever read.

And still, no discussion on it whatsoever here on NazNet. I don't understand that.

[Ryan Scott]

And still, no discussion on it whatsoever here on NazNet. I don't understand that.

I don't know how many people have read it yet. I know about a dozen who are currently or will soon be reading it. It's slow catching on.

[Jeff Borden]

I read it. I enjoyed interacting and wrestling with the concepts that Rollins purports. I don't necessarily agree that we have to "abandon" or "crucify" ever concept or understanding we hold about Christ in order to advance in our "God" relationship and/or understanding, but I think I understand why he (Rollins) suggests this premise. Here follows my personal review:

I have enjoyed the thought-provoking writing of Pete Rollins since getting my hands on and reading How (Not) to Speak of God around five years ago. Since reading that first book of his, I have been challenged, frustrated, stretched, inspired, enraged, and affirmed by each book I have read that has followed. Peter is that kind of thinker… that kind of writer. Insurrection remains true to the form set by those preceding works; it will stretch your mind, your heart, and the way in which you live out your faith.

I think, if I have understood this writing correctly, the overarching question of the book is this: “What does it require for faith in Christ to thrive?” This isn’t Rollin’s question; it is more my question as I worked through the book. As I was asking, and asking this question again, and again it seemed there was no sacred dog that Rollins was fearful of poking—and while this might be overly disturbing for some who might be unprepared to confront their beliefs asking themselves “WHY?” it can also be a very liberating experience that helps to root oneself deeply in their faith experience. Insurrection does this.

A few years back I purchased Peter’s book The Orthodox Heretic, a great little book of brain and heart teasing parables written by Rollins. I was happy to see him bringing his parables (assuming he wrote these) to Insurrection. He begins each chapter with a thoughtfully relevant parable. This served to “take my thinking out of park” and engage the gears of my listening skills and cognitive reasoning. You really need to be open with your thinking as you read the theology presented by Rollins in this work. This is not to say that I agree with every point he makes, but remaining open and listening well helps the reader interact with the processes Rollins presents…and interacting, processing, and wrestling are the actions that will produce faith fruit from this book.

Be prepared to be offended by some terms and some claims. If you’ve never read or listened to Pete Rollins, be prepared to have your faith doctrine tested… perhaps even shaken… be prepared to defend your version of truth, and be prepared to have your version of truth crushed. At some point of my reading and listening to Rollins, all of these experiences have been my own. I don’t consider this a bad thing. In fact, I trust the words that appear on the front cover and also that serve as the title of chapter two; “To Believe is Human; to Doubt, Divine. The Bible teaches us that we work out our salvation through fear and trembling. Insurrection might just give you the “shakes” you need that put you on the way to working out your salvation.

[Hans Deventer]

For those who would like to discuss its theological framework, according to a Facebook comment by him, Peter is working on a book that will do exactly that.

From Amazon: The Idolatry of God: Breaking Our Addiction to Certainty and Satisfaction

In contrast to the usual understanding of the "Good News" as a message offering satisfaction and certainty, Rollins argues for a radical and initially disturbing alternative. He explores how the Good News actually involves embracing the idea that we can't be whole, that life is difficult, and that we are in the dark. Arguing that God has traditionally been approached as a product that will render us complete, remove our suffering and reveal the answers, he introduces an incendiary approach to faith that invites us to embrace our brokenness, face our unknowing and accept the difficulties of existence. Only then, he argues, can we truly rob death of its sting and enter into the fullness of life.

Scheduled to be released on 1-1-2013. (in both American and European date notation )

[Billy Cox]

This is probably the most important book I have ever read. I don't say that lightly. I've read all of Rollins' other works, which are provocative and intelligent, but often difficult to interpret and understand. Insurrection is written is wonderful prose and while it is deep (I had to re-read many paragraphs several times), it is clear and straight-forward. Rollins presents faith in terms of two events - the crucifixion and resurrection - claiming that life is meant to be lived in the re-living of those two events. As each chapter began, I found myself unsure if I could go with Rollins to the places he leads, but ultimately, each time, I found myself in a place of familiarity - not that I had been there before, but simply that it felt right. His words are always challenging and often uncomfortable, but he speaks of faith and freedom and purpose in ways that are fresh and exciting. We, as Christians, need to hear these words. I believe this book provides an amazing framework for transformative engagement in the world.

It likely also provides the best explanation of holiness for a post-modern world that I've read (also the only one that has, thus far, resonated or made sense in any way).

Ryan, I get the impression (not having read the book...yet) that if I read this book, my last shreds of affinity for the Nazarene denomination will be gone. I'm not sure whether I am ready to put away my childish things.

[Ryan Scott]

Ryan, I get the impression (not having read the book...yet) that if I read this book, my last shreds of affinity for the Nazarene denomination will be gone. I'm not sure whether I am ready to put away my childish things.

That might be true. You seem to take the futility of the denominational politics a little more personally than the rest of us.

I look at life on it's own terms and sort of don't worry about how the people playing with power handle things. For me, Insurrection has a lot of think about for ministry.

[Billy Cox]

That might be true. You seem to take the futility of the denominational politics a little more personally than the rest of us.

I'm choosing not to be insulted by the patronizing tone of this.

I look at life on it's own terms and sort of don't worry about how the people playing with power handle things. For me, Insurrection has a lot of think about for ministry.

I imagine that it would be affirming to an outsider like me, but I wonder how you will reconcile it with your newly minted piece of the denominational plantation?

[Ryan Scott]

I'm choosing not to be insulted by the patronizing tone of this.

It's ok to be insulted if you need to be. I really don't understand why the structural institutional issues bother you so much. I don't really need to get it - I just don't, which makes it hard to sympathize. I didn't think you have the kind of personality to be bothered by it or I wouldn't have said it. I do sincerely apologize if it was offensive; I didn't mean it to be such.

I imagine that it would be affirming to an outsider like me, but I wonder how you will reconcile it with your newly minted piece of the denominational plantation?

Because, while I am beholden to the accountability of the denomination, my call (and my ordination) was in service to God. Quite honestly, Insurrection is the first real post-modern conception of holiness I've seen anywhere - if this doesn't fit with what it means to be a Nazarene, I'm not sure much else could.

[Billy Cox]

It's ok to be insulted if you need to be. I really don't understand why the structural institutional issues bother you so much. I don't really need to get it - I just don't, which makes it hard to sympathize. I didn't think you have the kind of personality to be bothered by it or I wouldn't have said it. I do sincerely apologize if it was offensive; I didn't mean it to be such.

I chose not to take offense, so no problem. My problem with the institution is that I have seen it chew up and spit out people far more righteous than me, while rewarding and even celebrating people far more arrogant and narcissistic than me. Is it just a matter of me having rarefied experience or me being disconnected from everyone else's reality? I lean toward thinking that the system is unredeemable, and that those who think that can save it will either be paved under or will take their position doing the paving. For what it's worth, this is written in pencil; I could still change my mind.

Because, while I am beholden to the accountability of the denomination, my call (and my ordination) was in service to God. Quite honestly, Insurrection is the first real post-modern conception of holiness I've seen anywhere - if this doesn't fit with what it means to be a Nazarene, I'm not sure much else could.

What do you do with the fact that the denomination increasingly sees postmodernism of any sort as an affront to the theologically conservative, generically evangelical identity of the Nazarenes? How long can you operate from that point of view before you find yourself on the business end of that accountability?

But you have skin in the game, and that counts for something.

[Ryan Scott]

What do you do with the fact that the denomination increasingly sees postmodernism of any sort as an affront to the theologically conservative, generically evangelical identity of the Nazarenes? How long can you operate from that point of view before you find yourself on the business end of that accountability?

But you have skin in the game, and that counts for something.

There are people far more out of favor than me who have yet to be kicked out. I'm low on the list.

Also, the district is our most powerful entity and really the only one that can or will do the expelling; I've got a pretty supportive district - if that ever changes, I know more than a few others who would also be supportive.

I do, like you, figure that power is generally problematic, so I try to avoid it. Granted our structure should be more pure than it is - but I just don't expect that to be possible given the humanity of those with power.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

I do, like you, figure that power is generally problematic, so I try to avoid it. Granted our structure should be more pure than it is - but I just don't expect that to be possible given the humanity of those with power.

I hope you two don't mind me jumping in. I still have yet to read this book (though I do own it), but this is something I've been thinking about for several years now, basically beginning when ordination became more of a reality for me. When I think about it, I'm fairly sure that both of you (and others on Naznet) have helped me think about this from afar. These are simply some of my thoughts on power, structures, and it's abuse. Just thoughts, not doctrine...

Outside of God, power is abused. Unfortunately, it's been the track record of humanity: take power away from God, and we'll abuse it. The eventual result of Constantine (regardless of his sincerity or not), the Crusades, Popes, Bishops, the local pastor: you name it, we've abused power in small ways and in large ways. I'm fairly sure I do it every day. I believe that every person has some ability to enact power, regardless of position. Surely some have much more of an ability and others have much less. But we all have choices to make in regard to power.

To fully withdraw from power structures doesn't seem to serve the Kingdom of God any better, and certainly not my citizenship within it (Romans 13 has helped me here...and Romans 14). Ultimately, my withdrawal from all power structures may be just as much an act of power-hunger as those of the structure that I'm trying to escape. It's just another form of greed: I end up binding power unto myself.

This certainly doesn't mean that we should always lie down and take it (though it could be argued that this is the example of Christ...). There are times when it has seemed largely appropriate for one or a group of many to go ahead and leave the structure. Luther, Wesley, and Jesus are all great examples. But it's notable that not one of them wanted to leave the structure of power. Their departure was ultimately by the hands of the power structures themselves, which is likely more painful than picking my own timing (it certainly literally was for Jesus).

(It's notable that these structures are made up of individuals. I've read one pastor to say that any time someone is railing against some institution and how horrible it's been, he asks them, "Oh yeah? What was his/her name?".)

There are things - either by doctrine or by general practice - in the CotN that, if I were making the decision alone, I would likely do differently. But when I think about how wrong I've been in the past, I shudder to think about what my own decision-making might look like. I've come to value the power structure in such a way that it serves as an authority outside of myself...and that, an authority as of God.

I pray, I read the scriptures, I look at tradition, and the mathematician in me reasons things through...but even with this sometimes very diligent work, I have been sorely wrong (and grace abounds). So sometimes even when I disagree "personally" (whatever that means) with the power structure, I've often of late done it or preached it anyway. While this might give me a failing grade in the class called Conscientious American Individualism, and it doesn't always make me popular with some of my peers, those in the younger generations (even those who say what they value most is "community"), or least of all: myself, I've found that this is a way by which I can operate for now.

I'm not sure all of what the future holds. But for now, here I am.

[Ryan Scott]

Thanks for your thoughts. I sort of treat the ecclesial hierarchy the same way I treat the governmental hierarchy. They're there and I have to interact with them from time to time - if they ask for my opinion, I'll give it. Otherwise, I generally don't worry about what they do unless it becomes a moral or ethical issue.

Obviously morality and ethics come into play more often in the denominational structure than in government (as it does claim Christ), but, as Jeremy said, there is a system of addressing grievances and making changes - as effective or futile as we expect them to be. Our particular structure is not all that authoritarian, so there's a quite a bit of freedom to operate.

[Hans Deventer]

Just read a critical but thorough and (I think) impressive review of the book. http://www.amazon.com/review/R1GYP6O...wasThisHelpful

Takes a while but it's worth reading.

[Todd Erickson]

I read insurrection right after it came out (Shea just showed me today that I wasn't scrolling down far enough under the forums list, which is why I was missing this) and then went to hear Rollins speak at a local college in town.

A lot of Rollins speaking is just redoing chunks of what he says on the internet, or in the book, but it's always fun seeing him at work, watching him work through things, etc.

After the talk, the majority of questions were people trying to pin him down...they were mostly moderns who felt that he was trying to find a liberal way to deny God, and they wanted him to affirm God, or affirm other religions, or spiritualism. They weren't talking about his book.

I asked about the book (which I had already read) and this idea that we were trying to force ourselves away from the rut of filing the hole, of an institutional pursuit of the normal which kept us from truly living in Christ, how would we do such a thing? He said that we could only do so in an accountable community who would all hold ourselves to such a thing, and remind ourselves, and affirm each other in that pursuit. Which falls right in line with my idea of what community and church should be.

I waited until most people had left after it, and went up and talked to him, and shared with him that I didn't know where to find a community like that, that his ideas, what he was proposing, was not what my church was interested in...they want the bridge to the idol so that their aches and cares can be filled, they want the God who magically makes things okay. He said that I was surrounded by people who I could reach out to for that, but my observation was that most of them were either there because they got extra credit for their philosophy class, or were there to catch him in a lie and prove him wrong. But it was an incredible experience, and he's a great guy.

The book really shook me because it points to a truer existence than the one that church calls me to, but I'm not pure enough, or true enough, to find my way to myself. I can see the things that are true, but I can't get there from here...I lose focus, my attention wanders, etc.

I'm looking forward to picking up his next book...but absorbing Rollins is a lot like becoming more theologically aware. It makes the distance between me and other people even greater...