More thoughts on How (Not) to Speak of God by Peter Rollins
This is a continuation of my first post on this book here.
Peter Rollins has done a fine job of writing this book. The first part of his book neatly builds an argument one chapter on top of another. He does a good job of stating his points and defends against potential attacks to his line of reasoning. He seems to be arguing for a combination of liberalism and fundamentalism, between those who say we have no God we can speak of and those who say ignore postmodern critiques of knowledge of God. The point is that while we can not know God apart from our subjective lenses of culture, language, etc. we can be those who are transformed by his message so as to become his people.
Maybe I am reading it wrong, but it seems that he is arguing in a logical, reasonable format, that Christians can no longer use logic and reason to get the message of Christianity across. Is it just me, or is there something wrong about that?
He ends the book with 10 services that take his philosophical understanding and make it pratical. It was in those practices that I wondered whether or not this was the direction Christianity should truly go. I believe that we should attempt to reach people of a postmodern persuasion, but I do not accept that we need to be postmodern to do that. Nor do I believe we must be modern to do that. Instead we must be biblical.
What are your thoughts?
