Heretical Orthodoxy

I am excited to begin a new series in which I will work through How (Not) to Speak of God by Peter Rollins. As I read the book, I keep thinking how helpful the concepts will be in responding to questions and criticisms levelled at the emerging church. I hope readers will help me to work through it, asking important questions both to clarify and challenge the thoughts I will be sharing.

Peter Rollins seems to prefer the phrase "emerging conversation" when referring to the emerging church. This is what he says in his introduction to the book:

While [emerging Church] is a useful term, the word 'Church' can be quite misleading, since the movement is not so much developing a distinct religious tradition within Christianity, but rather is re-introducing ideas ideas that help to both revitalize already existing religious traditions and build bridges between them. (xiv-xv)

I like where he's going with that statement, but the problem is that there is such a plethora of opinions about what "counts" as emerging. I would hope more people would come to view this whole phenomenon as a conversation more than a new denomination or an adjective to describe individual churches. We'll probably talk about this more later in the series.

Rollins compares the Christian experience of faith to "an infant feeling the embrace and tender kiss of its mother." (1) We love without truly comprehending the object of that love. Theology, then, is an attempt to describe the indescribable. One of the main thrusts of the book is to combat what Rollins calls "intellectual idolatry." (2) In the Modern period, conservative theologians have overestimated our ability to systematize theology. On the other end of the spectrum, liberal theologians have "mistakenly given up on the idea that we can speak meaningfully of God at all." (2)

Rollins believes that the emerging conversation can help us to find the both/and in this conversation. We can acknowledge both the immanence and the transcendence of God. I'll close this introductory post with this quote:

Instead of following the Greek-influenced idea of orthodoxy as right belief, these chapters show that the emerging community is helping us to rediscover the more Hebraic and mystical notion of the orthodox Christian as one who believes in the right way — that is, believing in a loving, sacrificial and Christlike manner. (2-3)

*********************************
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

[Sivin]

I too like where he is going with this statement:

"While [emerging Church] is a useful term, the word 'Church' can be quite misleading, since the movement is not so much developing a distinct religious tradition within Christianity, but rather is re-introducing ideas ideas that help to both revitalize already existing religious traditions and build bridges between them. (xiv-xv)"

In fact, this is how I have been viewing the conversation all this while for my own pilgrimage and minstry. My frustration often is when I see critics superimpose their "expectations" or "misinformed assumptions" or "hypothetical scenarios" which miss the point (and many other points) all together. That becomes tiring.

But the original intention springing out from what Rollin's quote is saying and what you affirm in your post ... now that's energizing!

[Jason_Hughlett]

So is this like a book club? We can all get a copy and talk about it here at your blog. That might be fun. :)

[Bill]

It becomes very annoying when critics of the EC point to some particular church and criticize their practices. It also annoys me when the EC is blamed for being "seeker-sensitive" because that's not at all what I imagine the conversation to be about. Then again, if certain churches call themselves "emerging" and are obviously like that, what can I say?