Peter Rollins chat transcript

Peter Rollins did a twitter chat interview with Third Way Magazine yesterday. I put together a transcript for those who would be interested. It was fun to see Peter limited to short answers (twitter only allows messages to be 140 characters long), as he usually has long, detailed responses which bunny-trail in several different directions (and you wonder why I like him!). I cleaned it up a little to get rid of text-speak and possible confusion from the letter limit.

---------------------------------
Third Way: We should get this one in first. Someone asked: 'If I've never heard of you, can you sum yourself up in 140 characters?'

Peter Rollins: Orthodox heretic, a/theist, Christian in the non-Christian sense of the term, bluffer and lover of Columbo

We'll get to some of that but, first, 'Orthodox heretic' sounds like an oxymoron, or is that a false opposition?

Orthodox is often thought to mean 'right belief', but perhaps it is better thought of as 'right praise'... in this way one can be orthodox while being a heretic... i.e. living in praise while acknowledging that we get God wrong

So to be orthodox, or to be heretic, or to be an orthodox heretic – are these things we should have as ambitions?

Being a heretic is not enough. There are good and bad heretics. One must try to be an orthodox one. A heretic who tries to live in love.

Also, being orthodox is not enough... without acknowledging you are a heretic pride can enter

How can you authentically praise something if you know you might be wrong about what you're praising?

If I fall in love I may not know what would please the person, but I act with the best knowledge I have, & in fear and trembling. certainty is not needed in order to act... love is!

@rhull56 asks 'What convinces Peter that the idea of God is worth taking seriously?'

Philosophers take the question seriously. Not so sure Christians should... Christians should b more interested in Christ-living

Wow... its hard getting big concepts shoe-horned into twitter (good question BTW)

Then perhaps he'd add 'Why Christ?' In the book you adapt Buddhist tales, for example.

Because the life (of Christ) that we read of is a radical one that, if followed, could lead to the continued transformation of society... Christianity, I believe is a radical faith based upon a radical idea. But I think that much of the actually existing churches misses this...

Perhaps only Marxists are as guilty as Christians of misrepresenting their founder

The shoe-horn point: The Orthodox Heretic reminds us that Jesus spoke to uneducated 1st Century peasants. Should all theology be that digestible?

We need to distinguish between theology & the truth of faith. The former is intellectually demanding the later is life demanding. Jesus was mostly about the truth rather than theology.

Not that theology is wrong at all! Its just not true :)

When Jesus spoke of the Father, was that true?

Yes & No. God as a Father 'yes', but as any kind of Father we experience 'no'. This 'yes/no' operates in all theology. It reveals something which remains all the time concealed. Belief should not be read as empirical certainty. Belief is more than this, it involves doubt, commitment, hope, faith and desire

Where does that leave the creeds? The 'We believe'?

The creeds attempt to help re-orient our lives, so that those 'beliefs' become modes of being. We come to live the death and resurrection. When we say, 'I believe in the resurrection' we primarily commit ourselves to becoming the site of new life to those around us. It is not primarily a mere intellectual assent.

There's nothing simple about a fable, but this book is more accessible than the others. What was the thinking behind that?

Buddhism has koans to draw out Enlightenment, we have parables... I wanted to explore this. I think attempting to change how people think is limited. I want to transform who we are. Parables are a mode of doing this.

these fables will get used by preachers. If each reader is the writer, how do we build one united body of believers?

We are unified not by shared belief but by a love and commitment to the same source. Unity in difference. We are often not good at this.

How might that work in practice? Between, say, Bishops Robinson & Akinola?

The creation of suspended space in which liberal & conservative lay down their positions in the liturgical hour2encounter each other. This is the place of 'neither/nor'... neither Jew nor Greek, Gay nor Straight, liberal nor conservative.

It is a participation in the divine Kenosis (see Philippians 2:7: "Jesus made himself nothing...") in which God is emptied of all identity. We do this and take on the identity of Christ.

you suggest that Jesus' teaching was often audience-specific, changing according to context. So was he a moral relativist?

No, he was driven by love. The issue however is that love is not possible to pin down. When we make love concrete we distort love... but we must do this anyway. Love is what drives us, but when we put it in to action it will look different in different contexts

in some tales you, the writer, imagine new words into his (Jesus) mouth. But yet you also warn against personal conceptions of God?

Both under-describing and over-describing are strategies for making sure we do not reduce God to our understanding. The Bible does both. God is given various personalities (warrior, peacemaker, unchanging, changing) & also we are told God is un-nameable.

The point of these parables is not to describe something but to perform something... Parables are a performative discourse

Thanks very much Pete. One final question from @sch3lp: 'What's the dynamic between story, its teller and its hearer?'

hmmm Story is like the child, teller is like the mother and the hearer is like one who adopts the child
---------------------------------

Let me know your thoughts! I especially enjoyed the distinction he made between, theology and the life of faith, as well as the thoughts on belief and certainty.