My Confession: I deny the Resurrection
I am four days into my ‘Lessons’ tour and so far loving it. My time to date has been spent in Calvin College engaging in fascinating debates with Kevin Corcoran, Jason Clark, Jamie Smith, Lori Wilson and Michael Wittmer. Many subjects have been covered, but perhaps the most pertinent one revolved around the place and nature of belief in faith.
At one point in the proceedings someone asked if my theoretical position led me to denying the Resurrection of Christ. This question allowed me the opportunity to communicate clearly and concisely my thoughts on the subject, which I repeat here.
Without equivocation or hesitation I fully and completely admit that I deny the resurrection of Christ. This is something that anyone who knows me could tell you, and I am not afraid to say it publicly, no matter what some people may think…
I deny the resurrection of Christ every time I do not serve at the feet of the oppressed, each day that I turn my back on the poor; I deny the resurrection of Christ when I close my ears to the cries of the downtrodden and lend my support to an unjust and corrupt system.
However there are moments when I affirm that resurrection, few and far between as they are. I affirm it when I stand up for those who are forced to live on their knees, when I speak for those who have had their tongues torn out, when I cry for those who have no more tears left to shed.
Tags: Calvin College, Confession, Peter Rollins, Resurrection, Serving the poor
January 31st, 2009 at 8:54 am
Hi Peter – great thoughts as usual
But to paraphrase Tina Turner – what’s resurrection got to do with it? I know that without ressurection, there’s no hope but didn’t Christ stand for the poor, the sick, the oppressed before he got killed? In essence, if we turn away from “those who are forced to live on their knees”, we deny Christ – not only his ressurection. Anyway, all the best with you tour.
Zbyszek
January 31st, 2009 at 9:29 am
[...] post by Peter Rollins. He’s a Jesus follower, writer and teacher. Imagine my surprise to read the following: Without equivocation or hesitation I fully and completely admit that I deny the resurrection of [...]
January 31st, 2009 at 11:48 am
[...] Rollins communicates powerfully: Without equivocation or hesitation I fully and completely admit that I deny the resurrection of [...]
January 31st, 2009 at 11:57 am
Wow…
January 31st, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Hey Pete,
I’m having great time here at Calvin w/you. Just a thought. Your denial of the resurrection is rhetorically very powerful. Of course, even Wittmer would agree with you. He would agree that he, too, denies the resurrection in all the ways you do. But one might wonder if what you MEAN when you SAY that you deny the resurrection in all the ways you (and I) most assuredly do is just that you, like me, often fail to live up to the very reality we give our life most unreservedly to. In other words, one might say that they too often fail to allow the new reality brought about by the resurrection of Christ–that reality that upends, ruptures, reorganizes and completely transforms life–to have its way with them. Denying the resurrection as you do is a grand Rollins-esque rhetorical flourish for sure; and a damn good one, too! But, there is a way to unpack it that makes it less outrageous that it might at first sight appear.
Love ya, man.
January 31st, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Pete, you’re a badass. Love it. I’ll spare my musings for another time, but once again I’m convicted, humbled, and inspired.
January 31st, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Kevin,
Is there really anything wrong with Pete not making it less outrageous than at first sight appear? For me, G-D IS Outrageous, in the sense that G-D IS bold, unusual, and startling. Pete’s way draws me in to deeper thinking.
Warm Regards,
EP
January 31st, 2009 at 5:01 pm
live! dance! beyond truth! towards beauty?
January 31st, 2009 at 5:54 pm
simply brilliant.
January 31st, 2009 at 6:12 pm
[...] This is the case for his latest post, My Confession: I deny the resurrection. [...]
January 31st, 2009 at 6:23 pm
I agree with Zbyszek’s analysis, that these (our own) failures which Pete evokes have more to do with a denial of the walk of life as it was walked by Jesus up to – but not always including – Gethsemane, Calvary, and the third day.
The Christian who shuns the struggle for social justice might be in danger of compromising his existential relation to the resurrected Christ, as Peter insists, but there is no question that such a one must at least be in denial of his association with the front-end of the incarnation – the walk of Christ in and for humanity in work started or completed before his death.
Here are two cases in which a Christian who unflinchingly serves this world’s poor and oppressed might still be “acting out” a denial of the resurrection –
(1) If he seeks his whole justification in the struggle for social justice and its result in this world, he then walks with Christ only as far as his last word of good cheer, his last healing, his last condemnation against the Council. From which point he deserts the crucified as though dead, and joins hands with the unbeliever, who also finds his whole duty in the struggle itself, mocking faith as nothing more than a psychological advantage not available to unbelief.
(2) If he follows his own interpretation of a godly Kingdom-on-Earth even when it is contradicted by teachings (i.e. the Sermon on the Mount) which have little meaning outside the context of Christ’s plain speaking about a kingdom that is not of this world.
I love this whole ironic frame which Peter has introduced. Here’s a take-off which I hope illustrates the distinctions I was trying to make:
I deny the resurrection every time my choices imply my own spiritual fullness rather than spiritual emptiness, every time my desire for something is allowed to over-ride my hunger for its righteous attainment, every time my step consciously defies the impulse of perfect will, every time my heart is divided along the line of reward and punishment. Etc.
I deny the resurrection every time I fail to return good for evil, every time I fail to love my enemy. Etc.
I deny the resurrection every time I shun a spiritual teaching of love on grounds that I am enmeshed in an earthly situation which renders it impossible.
Sorry about the length. When I get my blog up I will simply link to these kinds of writings with a short comment.
-John
January 31st, 2009 at 6:30 pm
[...] PeterRollins.net » Blog Archive » My Confession: I deny the Resurrection Without equivocation or hesitation I fully and completely admit that I deny the resurrection of Christ. This is something that anyone who knows me could tell you, and I am not afraid to say it publicly, no matter what some people may think… [...]
January 31st, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Good powerful ways of speaking, Peter. Grabbing the attention of the reader (listener) and giving the message. Maybe God is calling you to be a ‘prophet’ (remember on that, though, the pay is not great though the persecution might be. See the Old Testament documents [and New]for some detail on that, however;-)
Actually, many of the prophets (now that I think about it) labored to admonish those who took advantage of the poor, or exploited the poor. Such are not thought well of in God’s linguistic (see Bible, again). Anyway, good message. May I remember the poor in my family and midst. Not just the poor physically, but the poor spiritually and the like (that is actually more my family situation here in the States).
May your messages be recognized by the Word, and may your message go far when it is.
- Matt Oskvarek
January 31st, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Is there a mixing up in this. There are some looking for a metaphysical resurrection…and some who are talking about it metaphorically. Some who require Jesus to have actually risen from the dead…to have had the final victory over death…and those who are talking about the metaphorical implications of a resurrected christ…and what that might represent in the human experience. some are trying to find resonance in what Pete said…and some are finding it at couterpoints to their belief?
and i think, there is always an arrogance of sorts, to look at the “poor”…to think that we have more than “they”…whether spiritually or materially. To think that we are richer than they…that we have something to bestow upon them. something spiritual or intellectual or material.
am i less of a human if i do not turn the other cheek?
am i less valid if I do not love my neighbour as myself?
am i less of humane if I do not abhere to liberal-xian tenets of belief?
am i denying (not that i would care) the resurrection of christ, if i say, pay to ceasar what is due to ceasar…and say nothing against slavery…and appease the system in which i find myself in??
Maybe we all just write christ into our own little narratives, making him what we need him to be…and nobody has the monopoly on the truth of this.
????
January 31st, 2009 at 10:06 pm
EP:
No, there’s nothing wrong at all w/Pete’s rhetoric. I take Pete to be to the church what Amos was to Israel. I need that. The church needs that. So, I highly value the hyperbole. It agitates and unmasks in ways more prosaic language can’t. That having been said, my point still stands. It’s a different point than the point Pete makes with his rhetorical flourish and in many ways a less interesting or less important one. Still it’s a point worth making, I think.
Cheers,
Kevin
February 1st, 2009 at 9:58 am
Kevin,
Thanks so much for clarifying for me. i hear you saying either/or is not the point, but both/and are important. Not living in binary terms/realms and considering different points of view. Am i correct?
Cheers,
EP
February 1st, 2009 at 12:18 pm
people are getting caught up in the amusing twist here, and are missing the deeper meaning. it is not simply a rhetorical flourish, or being outrageous, or deliberately saying something provocative to generate attention.
he was originally asked by someone a theological question: “do you deny the resurrection?” they want to know if he is a heretic or not.
his answer isn’t just a clever twist. he is pointing out that theological orthodoxy is irrelevant when our orthodoxy fails to inform our behavior to be radically transformed and to live in the new life of Jesus as one born again.
we need to spend less time worried about who articulates the trinity and who supports atonement and penal substitution and bodily resurrection and more time worrying about who is giving Jesus a bad name by claiming to love him while living a life that denies him.
February 1st, 2009 at 12:56 pm
[...] http://peterrollins.net/blog/?p=136 [...]
February 1st, 2009 at 4:52 pm
I’m wondering if ‘Zbyszek’ has something
In doing/not those things are we actually denying the life of Jesus or in a sense participating in his Crucifixion through the denial of his life. Is belief in the resurrection not the hope both corporately and personally that the crucifixion does not trump God, that our failures both personally and corporately do not defeat God and his work in the world, that not just in spite but in the midst of our weakness and failure God triumphs.
February 1st, 2009 at 10:36 pm
[...] Denying the Resurrection Something to reflect on from Pete Rollins: Without equivocation or hesitation I fully and completely admit that I deny the resurrection of [...]
February 2nd, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Peter,
From a Levanasian perspective, I deny the resurrection everytime I entomb the Other in concepts and categories (thematization). In doing so, I deny my ethical obligation to the Other who stands before me demanding my response. He is the strangest of strangers seeking room in my inn. Unkowingly, by denying the resurrection in this way, I entomb myself in my own ego. Truly, without the resurrection we are ALL without hope.
John Macready
February 2nd, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Radical. We have cookie cutter ideas about Christ, and it is important that everyone believe the same things to fit in. People who don’t fit in are usually those who are actively being Christ-like, maybe? Well, except for people who take advantage of other people. Not many of us are radical enough in loving people in the world like Christ. Maybe none of us are radical enough to be that loving.
February 2nd, 2009 at 3:12 pm
A powerful perspective. EP calls it “outrageous” and that is a helpful descriptor for me. It’s tempting to think that when I fail to follow the call of Christ that it is a passive void of something, rather than an active denial. When I think of my spiritual walk in terms of “affirm” or “deny” rather than in degrees and attempts, it’s a sobering–and needed–reality check.
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:23 pm
[...] Peter Rollins: “Ik ontken de opstanding” Ingedeeld onder: Christendom, God, Jezus, bijbel, evangelie, theologie — Tags: armen, brennan manning, dienen, geloof, geloven, onderdrukten, opstanding, peter rollins, voeten wassen — brambonius @ 9:23 pm We gaan nog eens naar de filosofische theoloog Peter Rollins, die op zijn blog een berichtje heeft gepost getiteld: “My Confession: I deny the Resurrection“. [...]
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:52 pm
[...] via PeterRollins.net » Blog Archive » My Confession: I deny the Resurrection. [...]
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Peter,
One more reason why to read you. Willard seems to say the same. We cannot say what we believe. We only do what we believe.
February 2nd, 2009 at 10:31 pm
[...] a brief but provocative post, the always paradoxical Peter Rollins confesses that he denies the resurrection of [...]
February 3rd, 2009 at 1:37 am
Peter,
This blog is the hi–lowlight of my day. It reminds me of how many times i deny the resurrection, but reminds me of the full meaning of the hope that lies within me…
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:10 am
Peter, recently having a total awakening to my religious beliefs while walking on a hiking trail and fearing for my health, praying for divine intervention, it came to me. Low and behold, trust in Jesus,he died to save us, and that is all one needs. However, that trust must be practiced every single minute of the day, night, life time. The resurrection goes deeper than one walking away from one’s grave site. It means the resurrection of one’s way of thinking, relating to others, and to one self.
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:33 pm
Great stuff! While we point fingers at what sort of creed someone holds on to or what doctrinal position someone ascribes or believes we normally forget the tendency of being heretics of the positions we say hold.
February 4th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
[...] Ein gefundenes Fressen für all jene Kritiker der emerging church, die Texte nicht so genau lesen oder es schon immer gewusst haben: Pete Rollins leugnet die Auferstehung. [...]
February 4th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
wow.
February 4th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
When I lie that doesn’t change my [meta]belief that truth is better than lies. However, it does mean that — in that moment — I believed it was better to lie.[or I wouldn't have done it] Ultimately, when Christians sin we are denying that God “rewards those who seek him”. It proves our need of the Gospel [which is culminated and validated in the resurrection], and our need for continued sanctification and forgiveness.
It is not the sin, but our repentance that bears witness to our belief. Our sin reveals[reminds us of] our need of the gospel, our repentance reveals our belief in the Gospel, thanksgiving is the proper response for our forgiveness, and forgiving others bears witness to it.
THAT BEING SAID………
I think the controversy makes the point powerfully/masterfully. Also, it seems, Peter, you are following in the line of Jesus, who would ignore the “gotcha” question and get to the real heart of the issue.
Specifically, I see a parallel with Jesus’ teaching in Matt. 7:15-23 and Matt 25:31-46.
when we read these passages in light of …..
matthew 10:32,33
………..I think it’s clear that even though they confessed Christ, “believed”, and even did good works in his name, they denied him by not serving the oppressed. Therefore, we can say that they denied Christ[and the gospel/resurrection by proxy] by their sins. I think we would do well to be aware of these teachings.
February 4th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
Sounds similar to what Spong, Borg and Crossan say albeit with an irish accent.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:43 pm
I was touching in on Mark Berry’s site- and already had a grin on my face when i saw him tag you with that eeeefin outrageous statement. – all i can say to that is a very whole hearted AMEN! Thou doth RAWWWWK’th!
blessings from Austin TEXAS…
shalom & ahava,
cathryn
February 6th, 2009 at 7:31 am
[...] Rollins has an excellent post on why/how he denies the resurrection that has been bouncing around the blogosphere over the last [...]
February 6th, 2009 at 8:32 am
As the NI representative of the Ken Silva Appreciation Society what can I say?
R
LONG LIVE KEN SILVA
February 6th, 2009 at 11:57 am
[...] College (which by the way, I think it’s great that Calvin invited him). He blogs his answer and many are still talking about it. Like many, I read it on my RSS Feeder and my first thought [...]
February 6th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Martha – I don’t think that Peter’s work is in the same vein as Spong et al. Their approach is thoroughly scientific & modernist. For them, doubt about historicity is brought about because of certainty about their historical/critical method. I don’t think Peter’s work would place as much value on the kind of “certainty” they depend upon, in order to raise their doubts.
February 6th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
[...] Peter Rollins, phenomenology, resurrection, St. Thomas Peter confessed earlier this week that he denies the resurrection of Christ: Without equivocation or hesitation I fully and completely admit that I deny the resurrection of [...]
February 6th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
[...] Peter’s response seems rooted in phenomenology (and to those who have read his books this is no big surprise) and, for some reason, just seems to beat back the metaphysical question with force. [...]
February 6th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
Very well put. I have to confess, I was sucked into your “denial” for a second, but then soon came to the revelation that I openly do the same thing. Thanks for a good ‘ole “give your head a shake” moment.
Take Care
February 7th, 2009 at 11:31 am
I was startled for a moment when I began to read this post. Then I felt a huge sense of relief and gratitude when I realised what point was being made. Totally tremendous – thanks so much.
I have to say that I whenever I think of that youtube video ‘Peter Rollins on irony’ and the bit which mentions stuff said in church impacting (or not) on our lifestyles, I always feel perturbed. It’s very disturbing that you saw fit to make that point. Personally I can’t see much reason to do/go to church if it doesn’t transform the way one goes about one’s life. The Sunday morning/evening rituals (with perhaps some extra in between) are all well and good maybe but it’s what you do the rest of the time that counts for a hell of a lot too. I’ve really struggled with going to church for many years yet have long since viewed my day to day life as a vital exemplification of my faith. For instance; the environmental activism I have engaged in stems largely from my faith and it really fucks me off that people are only now beginning to do things to address climate chaos/global injustice (because the two pretty much go hand-in-hand) that I’ve been doing since the early 1990’s – concertedly, anyway. Stuff like; walking places, choosing not to learn to drive, eating less meat, buying Fairtrade whenever possible, holidaying at home, recycling, reducing energy and water consumption….And all the while I thought I wasn’t doing very much at all!!
So yeah, I also deny the Resurrection exceedingly frequently…but I attempt not to.
February 7th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Joseph, I thought your comment about Spong, Borg, and Crossan was very well put and yes, I also see them as dwelling far from the attempted renewal which Peter is about.
Their net result, after all, is in full accord with the report of Caiaphas to Pilate. In my view, it is an odd type of faith in “criticism” that gives to the chief priest of the old temple the last word on the Incarnation.
February 7th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
[...] Rollins has a provocative thought on Denying the Resurrection. I see I do as [...]
February 8th, 2009 at 2:07 am
[...] :: 24 :: Good Stuff 02.08.2009 Some people have a gift for say certain things in powerful [...]
February 8th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
Reader: I think that the mistake some people make when hearing such a thing as Pete has said above is simply this – they think that a denial in one category is a denial in all categories. Pete did not say whether he denied the resurrection in the sense that historical/critical method could grasp. The way he answered the original question seems, to me at least, to be removing himself from the confines of that kind of discourse.
February 9th, 2009 at 6:17 am
Okay -
I wonder if Peter Rollins can give a clear transparent response in an unambiguous manner to a simple question without hiding behind a phenomenological facade or a sidestep into the primacy of the social gospel?
What are your views about the reality of the resurrection?
Having thrown down the gauntlet I suspect there will be no answer or at best a retreat into postmodern vacuous language.
February 9th, 2009 at 8:09 am
john I believe your double barreled gotcha question betrays your motivation. Not to mention your predetermined expectations required in any response (clear, transparent, unambiguous). I commend your description of your own question i.e. “having thrown down the gauntlet” because that’s exactly what it does. Its a loaded question in that any answer to it would be reduced to meaningless rhetoric after being fired at from the sidelines. That, I believe would be the prime motivation behind it.
Perhaps a search for questions that seek meaning and truth and ‘the heart’ of a matter would be more beneficial.
Oh shit too much postmodern, vacuous language!
Sorry.
February 9th, 2009 at 11:00 am
Very few people I’ve ever met manage to live life toward Jesus’ way — even the most devout. Very few put their lives on the line. Very few leave their homes, jobs, families to follow where he went / goes.
If I try to imagine a world where people believe in the resurrection, but live as though it is irrelevant and a world where people confess that they do not know what really, historically happened on Easter morning, but choose to try to love their enemies, feed the poor, heal the sick, bind up the brokenhearted…I suspect the latter would be more faithful.
If “Christians,” church folk, those who say they believe, live as though the the resurrection is irrelevant — then does it matter to them what really happened?
One more thought. G-d will redeem / reconcile / save whatever and whomever G-d will, regardless of what I believe.
February 9th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
[...] comment you need to read Jump to Comments Follow this link to Peter Rollins blog site and read one of the most brilliant and provocative comments on the resurrection of Christ. Peter [...]
February 9th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Ah Josh
just the non-answer I expected mixed with some good satire!
John
February 9th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Maybe the reality of the resurrection isn’t as knowable as we once thought outside of living and encounter, or at least the real meaning comes into view from that perspective. So the reality of the resurrection is in the lives of those whom have encountered that reality and are living in it.
February 9th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Maybe it isn’t just a dodge. To answer from a an imposed perspective is to aquiesce to that perspective…rather I think he answered from a wholly different paradigm, that of a mystical point of view with reference to encounter not definition.
February 9th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
John –
If it makes you feel better, I wouldn’t recognize a “levanasian perspective”, to quote a commenter, if it bit me, and honestly, I’m not entirely sure what “phenomenological” even means. (It’s been a LONG time since I had a philosophy class.)
Having said that – and I am speaking only for myself right now – I honestly don’t know whether the resurrection was an historical event or a metaphorical one, and frankly, that isn’t a question I’m asking right now. I dig the Jesus I read about in the Bible, but don’t pray to him and would not frame my spiritual journey in terms of “following Jesus.” On several other theological points, I’m probably outside your definition of Christian orthodoxy (and certainly way outside Calvin College’s.)
Now that I’ve answered your question, I have a few for you: Why is that an important question to you? Does knowing that about me affect the way you would see me or interact with me? If Peter Rollins had answered you like I did, (and I have no idea what he really thinks) what would your reaction have been? What does that say to you about your own connection with the Divine and with other people?
I don’t know you, so I don’t know what your answers would be….
February 9th, 2009 at 11:40 pm
John Hazell, I think you err in attempting to redirect this thread away from discussions and confessions of the sin of paying lip-service to saving Truth.
Do you deny that your beliefs are powerless to save you from this sin? I’m sure you will admit it. But would you not also affirm that a true faith by its nature must be incapable of paying mere lip-service to its object? Of course.
I say it is possible to admit this problem with your beliefs without falsifying your faith, on one condition. You must admit that the object of genuine faith has a distinct characteristic which separates it from the objects of your mere beliefs (including this one you have about the resurrection).
What if a belief does not attain the level of living faith except when it has capacity for personal manifestation as truth in action? The object of a genuine Chrisitian faith must then exist wholly in a real appropriation of the power of God’s Spirit (since Pentecost), and have no existence whatsoever at the level of static, historic beliefs about the “reality” of flesh-resurrections or virgin births, where there is nothing to be done but enter into strife, controversy, conflict, exclusions, and other hypocrisies.
John A.
February 10th, 2009 at 4:39 am
I was repeating the original question which Pete Rollins was asked at Calvin College during a Q ann A session ‘do you believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus’. Since when is asking for clarity in a persons views on a subject insulting or offensive? I agree that beliefs should lead to personal transformation and Pete gave an eloquent response in that direction. I have been belittled in a sarcastic fashion by Josh, Christy seems to be suspicious of my motivation and Reader takes me to task for changing the direction of the thread……….is it too much to ask what a opinion or conviction Pete holds on a particular subject?
February 10th, 2009 at 5:00 am
John
I believe Petes whole project can be situated within the liberal/progressive non-theist death of God tradtion of Don Cupitt, Lloyd Geering etc – such a tradition has a distinctive niche within the UK as represented by the Sea of Faith movement but I am not sure if there is an American equivalent. This assessment is only my opinion and Pete would disagree with me. I am NOT trying to give you an answer to your question but only give you my idea where Pete is located in the theological landscape in a very generalised fashion.
Rodney
February 10th, 2009 at 10:12 am
Rodney, I see a position at least in harmony with Pete’s that is in line with a strand of theological criticism having origin in Kierkegaard, and even Barth, Bonhoeffer, and Tillich. Oh, and did I mention Meister Eckhart?
Barth entitled a chapter of Church Dogmatics, “The Revelation of God as the Abolition of Religion.” (in vol. i, part 2)
And John, I took several trips to Wittmer’s blog to keep up with the discussion, and I could see there’s really no point in discussing it with you or any of MW’s precious helpers. Pete is very wise to disengage, in my view. Jellicals are too wrapped up in the ghost of their conversion-sins to see the beauty of the real Gospel. You have the Incarnation wrong at both ends, in my opinion.
February 10th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Hello Reader,
If we lived in the same area I would invite you out for a pint to have a good chat about this stuff but alas I live in a different continent. I have broken my cardinal rule not to comment at length about theology on blogs which I believe to be a waste of time so I will now bow out.
all the best
Rodney
February 11th, 2009 at 4:12 am
John –
My intent was not to cast aspersions on your motivations. My questions were genuine questions or conversation starters – an attempt not to assume where you are coming from. (although I HAVE assumptions -I am trying to leave room for the idea they might not be correct.) Personally, I think you have every right to ask whatever questions are important to you – and I have every right to ask you what you intend to do with the answers. (And I rather think Peter Rollins should have answered the damn question straight up, and I have my own set of issues with the answer he gave, but I’m not him, and that’s not my call.)
My questions are more for my own benefit than anything else, I suppose (as are most things). We’re both random strangers on the internet, so our mutual opinions aren’t terribly important to each other, but if we were to meet in person and you asked me about my views on the historicity of the resurrection, I would tell you and then ask you a few questions to try to figure out how you would react to my lack of orthodoxy – not to judge your postmodern correctness, but to figure out if it’s safe to be honest with you or if I should confine my remarks to the economy and the weather. I just don’t have the stomach for arguing points of doctrine at the moment.
Obviously, you don’t owe me any explanation of your motives – what with the whole random strangers on the internet thing – but I really was trying (perhaps badly) to redirect things away from who’s right and who’s wrong into more conversational channels.
But the comments section of someone else’s blog is not a good place for these sorts of conversations, so I will wish you peace on your journey – and hope that you will wish the same on mine.
February 11th, 2009 at 6:31 am
Sorry Christy – I was wrong to jump to conclusions about being suspicious of my motivations…
I have found a somewhat nasty spirit on this blog….reader sees no point in talking to me and accuses my of being a ‘jellical’ and ‘like one of MW’s precious helpers’ (I am not sure what these comments mean but I think I am being insulted) and Josh beliitles me in a sarcastic fashion.
You note that Peter Rollins has not responded to my question – I am not suprised. Yet it is his blog so he can do what he wants.
John
February 11th, 2009 at 9:45 am
Love is not a physical thing, but unless it involves the body, it is not love. A mother can only love a newborn baby by feeding it. If she does not feed her baby, she does not love her baby.
“If you love me, feed my sheep”.
In the same way, the Father can only love the Son if he gives life to his dead body. The Father does not love the Son if he leaves him dead. Anything other than a physical resurrection implies that love can bypass the needs of the body, that the spirit is a shadowy super-sensible realm, and that meaning can float free of physical signification.
I don’t know how that relates to this discussion, or if I believe in the resurrection, and I certainly don’t know if I affirm it in the sense described here. But to me, this is the reason resurrection is central to Christianity.
February 11th, 2009 at 10:24 am
Rodney, thanks, sorry though, to put you off. I felt a negative reaction to the rapid “brush” you applied to Pete’s thought, but I’m not sure how justified I was in feeling that way. Having recently completed Pete’s first book, I naturally bristled at any link with names and labels other than the ones I had conjured for myself.
Nothing too positive in my reaction – I only know Cupitt’s work from a long-ago (probably unfair) dismissal of a couple of his writings. And I had no familiarity with Greeling at all, until I spent a half-hour on an Internet search yesterday. Probably inadequate knowledge still. But I feel that he has lost his way.
My source for yesterday’s comment was actually Daniel Jenkins (Beyond Religion, 1962). Another Brit, ah well. But Jenkins seems more of the strong-faith type who is willing to go after the church for its shortcomings. That’s the way I currently view Pete. Whereas Mr. Hazell, Mr. Wittmer, etc., I view as a strong-belief types, whose faith is actually weakened for being confused with the “conviction” they feel in their beliefs. I honestly don’t know where you are on the spectrum.
You’re right about time-wasting in comment threads. I worked on that faith-belief piece I addressed to Hazell for a long time, and I think it has some merit. And he simply shrugged it off.
-John A.
February 11th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
There are a few things which strike me about Pete’s answer & the discussion it has created. First, from what I understand the question was framed in the negative. This is important to consider. Think of a question phrased this way: do you deny your marriage vows? Now think of how Jesus addressed the question of adultery. One can deny one’s marriage vows both externally and internally. In Jesus’ treatment of adultery, an “external denial” (eg committing adultery with another person’s body) is an offense, as is “internal denial” (the lust which is within the heart, but does not have real contact with another person’s body). Whether or not there is a physical reality is irrelevant to this second kind of denial.
Just so (in a sort of mirror image), one can deny the resurrection externally or internally, or both. One can deny the resurrection of the actual body of Jesus, or one can deny the implications and meanings of the resurrection. Pete has (imho) only addressed the second part. I don’t know if he has or has not addressed the first part here or anywhere else.
For myself, I would hold that both are important, but I want to make sure I understand as well as I can the implicatons of Pete’s answer.
February 11th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
I think that the kind of answer Pete has given is building upon a precedent. If one were to ask: “have you denied your marriage vows?” (eg by adultery), there are two kinds of answering. There is an external denial (I have denied my vows, and there was contact with an actual body of another), and then there is an internal denial (I have had no physical contact, there was no body, but I denied my vows internally).
It seems to me that this is the logic of the answer. Since the question was asked negatively (”do you deny”), one should not be surprised that there are at least two kinds of answers to such a question.
February 11th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Reader – others appreciate the effort you put in writing a cogent comment.
There are at least two things which stirke me about this particular conversation. From what I understand, the original question was phrased in the negative: do you deny the resurrection? I think that is important to consider when asking whether Pete answered the question.
To put it in another light, suppose the question is asked of me (or anyone in similar estate of life) “do you deny your marriage?”. On one level, of course not; on other levels, probably yes. I think there is an obvious precedent in Jesus’ teaching on, say, adultery. Adultery is in one sense about an object and a reality in the world, isn’t it? But Jesus pushes it further and says more. An objective fact about a reality in the physical world does not determine (for Jesus) whether or not I have denied my marriage in adultery. So my sense is that there are two ways of “denying marriage” in this case – an external and an internal.
There is also more than one way to “deny the resurrection”.
February 12th, 2009 at 6:24 am
hello Reader
It is very hard to have a nuanced in depth conversation exploring this stuff on blog comments where it so easy for people to talk past each other. You are an articulate writer and your passion for theology shines through your comments – do you have a blog? I would put myself as a postevangelical progressive (affinities with Marcus Borg approach) with an interest in contemplative prayer if I was trying to locate myself on a spectrum.
If you ever get a chance to travel to the UK i would recommend Greenbelt Arts festival with its fascinating array of speakers, seminars,music and other arts areas as a really cool place to visit..
Sorry Pete – I have got carried away commenting and will stop monopolising your Blog!
Rodney
February 12th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
[...] I deny the resurrection of Christ every time I do not serve at the feet of the oppressed, each day that I turn my back on the poor; I deny the resurrection of Christ when I close my ears to the cries of the downtrodden and lend my support to an unjust and corrupt system. Read more [...]
February 13th, 2009 at 9:45 am
[...] PeterRollins.net » Blog Archive » My Confession: I deny the Resurrection – A sharp and articulate comment on what it means to follow Jesus. [...]
February 13th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
[...] February 6, 2009 in good reads, things that inspire me i’m convicted.Matt shared this blog post with me today…by peter rollins [...]
February 16th, 2009 at 10:59 am
Isn’t this kind of thinking backwards (as at least has already alluded)? It seems that by couching in those terms, the resurrection becomes a doctrine first that makes action possible (or necessary). I don’t believe in a literal, bodily, supernatural resurrection (if I did, I’d be at least a partial fundamentalist). At the same time, I can affirm the metaphorical understanding that resurrection imparts, i.e. that this undescrible love from the creator–and shown by Jesus, et al.–allows us to overcome and even conquer all things, even death. Resurrection for me is not a doctrine that empowers; it is an experience that empowers that somehow translates into doctrine (though not necessarily orthodoxy). I agree w/ one other: When we turn our back on the poor, we deny Jesus and God and love and compassion. Resurrection is the power that helps us to help them, to dismantle the oppressive systems, and to speak truth to power. Thus endeth my rant.
February 16th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Methpreach – I would suggest that a “classical” understanding of the resurrection sees it primarily as an event. It is only in later times that, in trying to understand that event, that it becomes a doctrine. I believe in a literal, physical resurrection, but that doesn’t make me (at least) even partly fundamentalist (that would be anachronistic).
February 17th, 2009 at 9:23 am
Resurrection
More real than literal
More real than metaphorical
More often than not my living
Amounts to denying
The Resurrection Reality of Christ
Tim
February 18th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
How’s this for a Rollins inspired reversal?
Resurrection
More unreal than literal
More unreal that metaphorical
More often than not my living reflects reality
And amounts to denying
The Unreality of the Resurrection
Tim
February 18th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
[...] David Gottlieb added an interesting post on PeterRollins.net » Blog Archive » My Confession: I deny the…Here’s a small excerptA wonderful and thought provoking piece on the meaning of the resurrection in the BChristian/B tradition. [...]
February 19th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
That’s a great way to think about denying the resurrection, but it really only is possible if the resurrection is a historical reality in the first place. What are Peter’s thoughts on that? And Paul is not to be ignored on this question:
1 Cor 15:17-19 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.
February 22nd, 2009 at 12:45 am
[...] My Confession: I Deny the Resurrection [...]
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:03 am
Agreed completely – without the resurrection we’re left with religious humanism. Cloak it how you want, this isn’t Christianity.
February 24th, 2009 at 7:04 am
Peter and Marygrant
Rollins will not answer this question as I asked it earlier on in the comments section.
John
March 1st, 2009 at 5:38 pm
[...] PeterRollins.net » Blog Archive » My Confession: I deny the … [...]
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:19 am
[...] last thing in this already superfluous post. Here is a link to a Pete Rollins blog post and his view of living in light of the [...]
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Meaning of Live, part 18
http://www.shuckandjive.org/2009/03/meaning-of-life-part-18.html
March 9th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
[...] also deny the resurrection of jesus one of my favorite authors was recently on a north american tour to chat about his book and the different issues that it [...]
March 10th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
[...] had their tongues torn out, when I cry for those who have no more tears left to shed. /// Blog: PeterRollins.net Blog Archive My Confession: I deny the Resurrection I thought the title was very catchy. At first, I thought it was some atheist blog when I stumbled [...]
March 18th, 2009 at 6:50 am
[...] However there are moments when I affirm that resurrection, few and far between as they are. I affirm it when I stand up for those who are forced to live on their knees, when I speak for those who have had their tongues torn out, when I cry for those who have no more tears left to shed."Peter Rollins [...]
April 4th, 2009 at 11:14 am
[...] However there are moments when I affirm that resurrection, few and far between as they are. I affirm it when I stand up for those who are forced to live on their knees, when I speak for those who have had their tongues torn out, when I cry for those who have no more tears left to shed.Peter Rollins [...]
April 12th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
[...] [1] Peter Rollins. My Confession: I Deny the Resurrection. January 31, 2009 (http://peterrollins.net/blog/?p=136) [...]
June 6th, 2009 at 5:02 am
[...] You can read it reproduced here from his website blog http://peterrollins.net/blog/?p=136 [...]
June 17th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
[...] middle-ground, but an altogether alternative paradigm, believing the right way, illustrated in this blog post of his from this past January. Without equivocation or hesitation I fully and completely admit that [...]
June 24th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
I was reading this on another blog, dwelling on it, and what I want to ask is this: do you believe that you are less saved or more saved now than when you first surrendered to Christ? When you do bad, is Christ working more or less in you? I wanted to ask that because, after reading again what you said of when you affirm the resurrection and when he doesn’t, you are saying the resurrection is affirmed by our works. If that it so, then it is about works and our own strength, and not faith. We were reconciled when we were enemies of God, not when we were friends. Look at Romans 5:10: “For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.” What I am trying to say I guess is that His life in you and your life of faith are the testimony of His resurrection, not your good works.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:57 am
[...] it there, but here’s the quote directly from Peter Rollin’s blog of his encounter at Calvin College. I deny the resurrection of Christ every time I do not serve at the feet of the oppressed, each day [...]
July 9th, 2009 at 10:42 am
Beautiful.
Simply beautiful.
Thanks for sharing this here as well as with us at PPP09 this past week. I hope to cross paths with you again soon.
July 26th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
[...] was once asked if he believed in the resurrection of Jesus. He’s a provocative thinker! Listen to what he says: Without equivocation or hesitation I fully and completely admit that I deny the resurrection of [...]
July 26th, 2009 at 11:40 pm
[...] mentions of, you guessed it, heresy. Some of the comments about the Resurrection reminded me of this provocative post on Pete’s blog, his confession about what he believes regarding the resurrection. I am four [...]
August 31st, 2009 at 5:36 pm
[...] My Confession: I deny the Resurrection “At one point in the proceedings [Calvin College debates] someone asked if my theoretical position led me to denying the Resurrection of Christ. This question allowed me the opportunity to communicate clearly and concisely my thoughts on the subject, which I repeat here. Without equivocation or hesitation I fully and completely admit that I deny the resurrection of Christ. This is something that anyone who knows me could tell you, and I am not afraid to say it publicly, no matter what some people may think…I deny the resurrection of Christ every time I do not serve at the feet of the oppressed, each day that I turn my back on the poor; I deny the resurrection of Christ when I close my ears to the cries of the downtrodden and lend my support to an unjust and corrupt system. However there are moments when I affirm that resurrection, few and far between as they are. I affirm it when I stand up for those who are forced to live on their knees, when I speak for those who have had their tongues torn out, when I cry for those who have no more tears left to shed.” (From Pete’s blog) [...]
January 5th, 2010 at 3:56 pm
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by Ntarbie: On denying the resurrection of Christ http://peterrollins.net/blog/?p=136 (via @holycowcreative ) // Ouch….