I like both Peter Rollins

Oops - address needs to be copied into the browser or you'll get a broken link.

(For anyone who doesn't like reading lengthy blog posts on-line and prefers a pdf, it can be downloaded by clicking www.peterjohnbannister.com/On almost agreeing with Peter Rollins.pdf ) Peter B.

Thanks very much Peter for sharing my review - and for being unafraid of what I hope is constructive engagement! I don't know if you found it, but I also put a second, slightly less philosophically-oriented article entitled 'Thirst is our only light (Or 'On almost agreeing with Peter Rollins')' on my blog: http://sdgmusic.org/bannister/?p=1939 This one focuses particularly on the late Bonhoeffer (after whose poetry the blog 'Da stand das Meer' is named) and Mother Teresa's co-author Brother Roger of Taizé, one of my long-time personal heroes. Looking forward to carrying on the conversation! Peter B.

Thanks to everyone for the thoughtful, challenging and gracious comments. I love this journey and am indebted to people like yourselves who take time to engage so intelligently and graciously with my work. And thanks to Peter for a great article on my work (one I have shared widely with others). I look forward to more critical engagement with you all. p

Postscript: 1) Peter Rollins states during questions at the end of the podcast that he is more interested in engaging existential questioning of our presuppositions, rather than epistemological questioning. So, it appears that he is seeking to bring Hegel's "Unhappy Consiciousness" to Christian consciousness=Insurrection/pyro-theology. Amazing. 2) Regarding Rollins concept of Original Sin as separation and his concern how theologians would respond, I appreciate how he is avoiding the punishment aspect of original sin and focuses on relational violation, i.e., idolatry. I think he need not worry how theology might respond, especially looking at Pannenberg's treatment of original sin in "Anthropology in Theological Perspective" which is non-punitive. As an example, on page 87, he has a section: "Egoism and the Failure of Selfhood." Egoism (my self-serving beliefs, idolatry) is actually a perversion of Pannenberg's concept of exocentrisim (alterity) where relationship becomes a means to an end rather than an end in itself, etc.

Just listened to Peter Rollins podcast again with fascination at his subtle and profound thinking communicated in such an entertaining series of stories, jokes and explanations--very rare. This time I couldn't help but listen to his Myth of our Fall, orginal sin of idolatry, and how that sin starts according to his Myth when, as infants, we seek Mother's love, and God-forbid, we get it. Then she makes us her everything and we make her our everything and life is lost, forever seeking false satisfaction like Wylie Coyote after the Roadrunner (false desire). I couldn't resist deconstructing Peter's interpretation of the Myth since he included attachment theory issues as foundational to his theology. He described his own view of attachment as "smothering mothering," which results in the Ambivalent style of attachment (very depressing, as Peter has experienced). Another attachment style is also problematic, called Avoidant where the mother is unavailable. The normal style of attachment is Secure and results in good self-esteem due to effective capacity to love. Therefore, it is consistent that he would have developed a theology and philosophy out of his belief developed from an Ambivalent attachment style which would result in the Primary Relationship with God that would cause Him to be as non-smothering as possible, i.e., Nothing. Or, the One who does nothing but call forth, elicit but have no corrupting presence. While I can understand his preferred stance toward God, it leaves out the concept of a Secure relationship with a capably loving God whose presence would actually not only elicit love from each to love one another, but also, manifest in the presence of the Holy Spirit, provide the amazing presence of warm, enhancing, enriching, inexhaustable, attuned Love. For more on attachment theory see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_theory

Peter Rollins: Your deconstruction of all things theological while emphasizing all things psychological/spiritual is your strength, which can cut through those of us who "idolize" or reify the theoretical/theological and could better live out what we believe. Peter, you are prone to "idolize" or reify the psychological/experiential at the expense of revelatory thinking and believing (as explicated by NT Wright, for example). However, what a brilliant concept for you to analyze all of our own God concepts--not as private and self-serving--but rather experience God beyond those concepts not as One I can have for my own pet purposes, but as the facilitator and revealer of my capacity to love. Da Stand daas Meer/ Peter B. Your communicative style itself is quite remarkable: abstract addressing of substantive issues in a context of affirmation. What a refreshing combination of addressing concerns positively.

Wanted to thank everyone for the amazing deep and thoughtful responses. I am so glad I posted this! my brain is abuzz with your thoughts and feedback ! -Bo

Peter B--loved the review. People should click on it. In particular I like your emphasis on pneumatology--I believe we need to engage more seriously with the claim that any talk of onto-theology is either 1) completely irrelevant or 2) necessarily and inexorably leads to coersion, oppression, domination (while acknowledging how it has indeed led to those things historically, and affirming the critique of the classical hierarchical models of God)

P.S. In case the link doesn't work, the article should open directly at http://www.peterjohnbannister.com/Rollins%20Insurrection%20review.pdf Peter B.

Bo, Thanks very much for posting this audio and intitiating the conversation around Pete Rollins' 'Insurrection', which I've just read with great interest and enjoyment. Rather than take up space on this blog, I've posted a response to the book and some thoughtful reviews from fellow bloggers: this can be downloaded as a pdf at http://www.zshare.net/download/958256732de7080c/ (please let me know if the link doesn't work). I'm dealing with some of the issues in a book chapter on postmodern philosophy's notion of kenosis, but given the speed at which academic publications (don't) materialize, I thought I'd sound off now rather than wait 2 years before publishing! Keep up the great work, Peter B.

I think that many Evangelicals (and those who want to be) find Rollins threatening because you really have to listen to what he's saying and take it in context. If you're used to being able to make ontological snap judgments about things, you're really going to miss Rollins, because he's so busy getting to the question behind the question that he has no interest in satisfying the fears of the ontologically minded, and he can seem very threatening, because he refuses to commit to any of the safe camps. Which is probably why Bell likes him so much.