21st Century Pharisees?

In How (Not) to Speak of God, Peter Rollins observes the following about the Pharisees:

...they held so closely to their interpretation of the Messiah that when the Messiah finally appeared in a form that was different to what they expected, they rejected the Messiah in order to retain the integrity of their interpretation. (21)

This is an interesting observation because, just like the Pharisees of old, it seems to me that a great many Christians today think we have this whole theology thing figured out. Rollins argues against our attempts to objectify God using the illustration of a World War II concentration camp:

While some guards may have held more objective data about an individual than that individual's own family, the family would still possess a knowledge of the individual which the soldiers could never gain, a knowledge that is only opened up in love. (22)

The point is that we can know a lot of facts about someone and yet not "know" them. Could this be true of God as well? Rollins warns us that God should not be objectified. He points out that the "term 'knowing' in the Hebrew tradition (in contrast to the Greek tradition) is about engaging in an intimate encounter rather than describing some objective fact..." (22-23) God makes himself knowable in one sense and yet he is somehow beyond our ability to "know." Rollins argues that God is immanent, but that his very immanence blinds us "the same way that the sun blinds the one who looks directly at its light." (24) He invents the term "hypernymity" to describe God's transcendent immanence:

While anonymity offers too little information for our understanding to grasp... hypernymity gives us far too much information. Instead of being limited by the poverty of absence we are short-circuited by the excess of presence. (24)

Rollins believes that we are meant to speak of God, but to never think that we have accurately described him. This kind of thinking butts heads with the fundamentalism that has been so prevalent in the Modern church.

Very briefly, fundamentalism can be understood as a particular way of believing one's beliefs rather than referring to the actual content of one's beliefs. It can be described as holding a belief system in such a way that it mutually excludes all other systems, rejecting other views in direct proportion to how much they differ from one's own." (26)

I have seen this "way of believing" exhibited by those who give anything they don't agree with the dreaded "liberal" label. In fundamentalist circles, one hears the phrase "They've gone liberal." If someone doubts the deeply held convictions of the fundamentalist, they have obviously fallen prey to the "world." All sorts of conjecture is given about the sinful motives of this "worldly" person or organization. All of this stems from a "way of believing" that Rollins says the emerging church (EC) opposes. Again, it is not about what you believe, but about how you believe it.

Rollins doesn't want us to think that "our beliefs are inherently problematic, but only that they become problematic when held in a manner that would claim more than some provisional, pragmatic response to that which transcends conceptualization." (26-27) It is dogmatism that is under fire here. People who are drawn to the EC tend to have a certain allergic response to dogmatism. It's interesting that their very skepticism of certitude often causes ECers to be accused of pride and arrogance. Their willingness to question foregone conclusions is looked upon as an attack stemming from intellectual weakness or some variety of evil intentions.

Could it be that in our desire to know God (objectively) we often miss the experience of knowing Him (subjectively)? Do we, like the pharisees, suffer from an overconfidence in our theological systems? It's interesting to note that Jesus shared a lot of the same theological views as the Pharisees and yet he spent a lot of time denouncing them. I pray that we will be able to learn from history and not fall into the same traps that the 1st century Pharisees fell into.

*********************************
Links to the rest if this series: Heretical Orthodoxy, Conceptual Idolatry, Defining God, 21st Century Pharisees?, Powerless Discourse, Answers & Questions, The Search for God, Doxorthy

Comments

[deborah]

It is because of this kind of thinking that people who believe more liberal things about Chritianity may not agree with the fundamentalist, but still think they are saved and are Christians. The fundamentialists tend to think the more liberal people are not saved and not Christians.

My favorite is when I get accused of "not liking rules" when none of the rules they want me to follow are actually in the Bible.

Did you see the series on Jesus Creed about Zealotry?

[Bill]

Extrabiblical rules is a good example of 21st century Pharisaism. I did see that series, but I don't think I read the whole thing.

Did you see his new series called Emerging and Orthodoxy? It's a good one. I've got a post all set to go with links to it. I also have a post on defining fundamentalism. I'm trying to let this post brew for a little while before I post them, though.

[ken]

I think that this is a big stumbling block for many that don't believe. They seem to need to be able to quantify and label God. They come at God from a scientific point of view because that is how we are brought up (in general). If you can't quantify it (unless of course a 'scientist' has told you that it is possible) then it doesn't exist.

God is bigger than our silly little minds can ever begin to comprehend. Take what we don't understand about the cosmos and multiply that by 1000 and you still aren't even close.

[ken]

I agree with Deborah on the 'rules' issue. It is funny when I get accused of that because the person obviously knows nothing about me. If I was against rules I would never have chosen the career I am in.

[Bill]

Good point about not wanting to believe in what we cannot quantify. I wonder if quantum physics helps with that at all? It seems to me that scientists would be more willing to admit how much they don't know based on advances in that field.

[ken]

I have been reading two books on the universe (The Whole Shebang and Stephen Hawkin's book) and it amazes me the things that they take as fact based on leaps of faith.... but God doesn't exist because they haven't proven it. The Whole Shebang is a very good book. Very down to earth and understandable.

[deborah]

I really liked the 3rd part in the series on Emerging and Orthodoxy where he goes throught the differing reasons people feel drawn to the ec:

http://www.jesuscreed.org/?p=1352#comments

[Bill]

Ken,

That sounds good. My brother Adam is in to that stuff. I'm pretty sure he's read Hawking's book, but I'll ask him about The Whole Shebang. Maybe I'll get it from the library.

Deb,

I liked that part, too. I think I'm a combination of all four, with the exception that I'm not really THAT into the political aspects. I think the justice issues are important, but I don't feel led to be personally involved. If pressed, I would probably say that I fall into the "postmodern" group with the "postevangelical" impulse close behind.

[deborah]

Another good one is Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything". It is in layman's english and he has a lot of fun with the points that form the foundation of scientific facts but either are not physically possible or scientists don't understand/can't explain.

The guy also has a great sense of humor so the book is really fun.