The Insurrection debate
Quite a stir has been caused by my announcement of the ‘Insurrection’ pub tour. Much of it sparked off by some comments and a post from Mark Van Steenwyk on The Jesus Manifesto. Some of the conversation has been quite heated, but let us not apologize for that. Some of our critics think that we have no fight in us and it is refreshing to see some sparks fly. For when iron sharpens iron there are always sparks. Of course the problem arises when we stop listening to each other, but that doesn’t seem to be happening. There has been some anger, but it also feels like the conversation might actually produce some interesting connections and insights. Mark has asked some important questions and I am very supportive of that.
The main problem for me is that now more than ever I need to make sure that this tour starts some fires! That it does not end up being mere theological entertainment but rather an exercise in pyro-theology… the pressure is on.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
I’m a twisted fire starter
November 24th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Oh yeah. Folks argue about what is important. The more arguments over what constitutes true insurrection, how we can challenge Empire, how we can live as pockets networked resistance, etc…the better. I know I’d rather argue about this stuff than just about anything else.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Peter Rollins and Mark Van Steenwyk, dbgooglereader. dbgooglereader said: The Insurrection debate: Quite a stir has been caused by my announcement of the ‘Insurrection’ pub tour. Much o.. http://bit.ly/8RBMcm [...]
November 24th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Keep her lit, big lad…
November 24th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
I trust you both to bring both heat AND light to this world (and the theological equivalent of beer, let us hope with wild abandon). Keep at it friends!
November 24th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Talk is always better with social lubricant (in my case, I’d opt for a porter or, perhaps, a barleywine style ale). I’d rather have real beer than theological beer, Dave, but perhaps we can have both?
November 24th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
‘heat AND light’ – I am currently involved in an internal debate as to the appropriate caliber, but that is just me
November 24th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
I, for one, think having a beer with both of you would be a blast. The whole point of shooting sacred cows is so the glimpse of God shines through. So once the dust settles, hopefully the heat will produce glimpses of light. All too often the internet can produce a climate where a silly faith fight and digress into an unbiblical brawl and we end up kicking Christ to the curb.
And what we thought was a simple misunderstanding that could be quickly cleared up via a beer or two morphs into slanderous and libelous proportions. If Christ can forgive others on the cross, what prevents us from doing likewise – just what was the insurrection that Christ is achieving via the resurrection? His disciples were expecting a Zealot not a wounded Christ. What does this mean for us today who claim to be followers of Christ?
November 24th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
I will put gasoline, diesel and fire talking about this tour. People need to think in what they believe, and why they believe in Christ. Like Becky said: What does mean to be a Christian ?
November 24th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
For what it’s worth, I have really appreciated this conversation (despite the anger) and enjoyed being a lurker in the background.
As one who is currently working on advanced degrees, tends to be more theoretically minded, and wants to find some weird way to occupy the transient and liminal space between the academy and the collective, I often have these same tensions arise in my own life. It is encouraging to see others wrestling with it as well.
Peter and Mark, more power to you both!
November 24th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
[...] through the comments section you will Pete responding near the bottom. Peter wrote a another post here on the issue at hand. I agree that we need less tours and more action, but tours often promote and [...]
November 24th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Peter and Mark, well done! You’ve taken an awkward, if not outright hostile, conversation and converted it into something that has potential to beautifully advance the Kingdom of God in real ways. If i can sit in on the theopraxis beer fest, I’ll buy a round (after all I am getting rich pastoring a Mennonite church in the middle of nowhere ~ not really, but I can afford some beer.)
November 24th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Pete, over at the Jesus Manifesto you mentioned that thinkers such as Zizek and others (who must not be named) have motivated and given you inspiration for the tour. Are you talking about other academics and political philosophers? Just curious what other (neo) Marxists you were reading. Have you read the Hardt and Negri’s new work called Multitude yet? i need to get around to it, but I just finished Zizek’s latest, which wasn’t that bad. I especially liked the name dropping of Altizer in the latest. Also, I don’t know if you went to AAR, but Zizek’s talk on the death of god is posted at: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=BD87CBD73DC1EFF5. I wished someone would have recorded Altizer’s talk, oh well.
November 24th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
the death of God talk in you tube it’s a good summation… of what i feel needs to be inscribed in faith communities. Death of God means …you the collective of believers are it …god trust us. There is no Big Other pulling the strings so that everything turns out ok in the overall picture… It’s up to us … to hate mother and father means to destroy social hierarchies and build an egalitarian organization. we are creative we can do it. also the importance it’s not so that the capitalist version of christianity survives but that it is completely burnt away so something new can come through. peace pete.
November 24th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
Are you coming to Kansas City? I’d love to talk with you about this. I am going to be a teacher and I have been getting sick of theory theory theory. We talk about how bad state assessments are without being empowered to change anything about it. I plan on just not taking the state assessment, and yeah, I may get fired, but that will just reveal the weakness of the school system.
November 24th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
Becky…you’re on (as long as you’re buying). I’m certainly hoping there is light ahead (I know that I feel like my ass got kicked today by the number of responses from all over).
November 25th, 2009 at 12:10 am
Love to host Pete and you for beers. And yes, I’m buying as long as y’all promise not to drink me under the table. I’ll leave it up to the two of you to work out the details – maybe the next time you’re in NYC?
I think it’s worthwhile at some point to explore why there was so much hatred directed towards you. Let’s not rehash this day except that I think you’d agree that in the future if you feel called to post something provocative, you’ll show it around to a few folks first – If I caught wind of a posting like this that was coming down the pike, I’d definitely suggest the author might want to tone it down.
During the promotion of my new atheist book, I got slammed by fundies on both sides till I thought I’d burst. I began to explore with some folks like the Purple State of Mind and the Good without God guys how we can move beyond this hatred into finding common ground. This is NOT a wishy-washy scenario but an earnest and intense quest to turn down the white noise so we can begin to actually dialogue instead of dissing. I see some light here – though some days the debating can still get durn nasty. Fingers crossed here.
November 25th, 2009 at 2:57 am
If I can I’d like to explore why there was so much anger directed toward Mark. I think a use of the concept of the subject-supposed-to-believe comes in handy here. From what I can tell many of the commentators on this blog we’re very defensive of Peter concerning the accusation of his sincerity and the potential capital he might pocket from such a tour (now as it has become clear this frustration seems justified as some of the claims were uncharitable and untrue). Effectively, everyone has put Peter in the position as the subject supposed to believe that an insurrection is possible. That there might actually be a change. None of us might actually believe in this ourselves, but the fact that Peter might allows us to sleep soundly at night.
I think Peter made the same point when he discussed how children often keep their loss of faith from their parents to protect them. However, in reality the twist is that if the parent’s can no longer believe through their child’s naive beliefs, then it might actually force the parents to confront whether or not they truly believe.
The analogy seems to work here. We believe through Peter, and we’re upset with someone challenging Peter’s sincerity. In reality, we’re really concerned that the challenge will make us confront whether or not we ourselves actually believe that something like this is truly possible or merely false rhetoric.
Disclaimer: I’m sure many of you are very sincere and doing much more than I am to make this reality a possibility. I was merely trying to analyze the stark anger directed toward Mark. Again, I readily admit much of it was justified, but the structure I think was opportune for such an analysis.
November 25th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
I don’t think the much of the anger toward Mark was justified. But that is just me.
I am a guy in the midwestern US posting under the pseudonym of a British comedian after all.
I assume all this insurrection talk is aimed internally, at motivating other post-Christian emergent folks. To compost more, I hope. And maybe shop less at big box stores in the suburbs.
I think post-Christian-barely-Christian people like me would find it really comical in general. At least I do. Or offensive. But not offensive in a “good way.” Like offensive badass. Offensive in a “that’s cute” sorta way.
I’m just being honest, ya’ll. Not enough people are honest anymore.
And if they are, they post under a pseudonym.
If ya’ll really wanna do this you may as well deal honestly with what other people outside your movement might think of it. Or maybe you don’t want to. I’m cool with that too. Just blowing time at work, right?
But like I said, if the target for the tour, and the graphic design pieces that accompany these posts, are, indeed other people that read Brian McLaren books, then I think it will be largely respected and successful. There will be more composting, and less big boxing, and a few decent pubs will sell a little more beer when Peter is in town.
Send me hate tweets please. It really does generate great material for me.
Sorry for being so caustic.
You are interesting emergents. Nothing if not interesting.
November 25th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Oh, and I went ahead and signed up for this email address.
rickygerv…yadda yadda…@yahoo.com
Its seems fake, but it’s a real one now!
November 25th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
As for the response towards Mark, I think it’s useful to think about the other ways that subversive movements are stomped out in the US. I agree with Mark that subversive language and ideas can be commodified, stripped of their meaning and reabsorbed by the status quo. The other reality (and I am NOT accusing Mark of this) is heresy hunters who seek to brand new ideas and the people who espouse them as dangerous, hypocritical, disingenuous, etc. I think it’s now clear that that was NOT what Mark was attempting to do. At the same time, it’s also possible that people perceived him to be doing that. Factor in the disconnect between Mark’s initial comments and what is known of Pete and his work, and a big misunderstanding occurred. It’s also clear that Pete’s friend have his back, which I think is cool.
November 25th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Hey Ricky
I think the annoyance was related to the personal claims that were being made against me, not the theoretical issues. I am very happy to discuss the issues, indeed I spend most of my days doing it! So I doubt anyone will send you hate mail no matter how much you want it (although I can pretend if you want). As far as I can tell you are just surfing the net in work and making idle comments. Fair enough. And there is no point in me feeling a bruised ego that people find my work cutesy. It would be too self-indulgent.
In general however I am amazed that some people think they know what this tour is about… as far as I know the contents is known only by a few
November 25th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Uh “Ricky”…since you are working under a pseudonym, I’m wondering if you are someone I know who is trying to be supportive of me. If that is the case, I’d rather if you used your real name or, perhaps, not comment. I’m not a big fan of lobbing banter in anonymity.
November 26th, 2009 at 3:08 am
Preaching this Sunday on the lectionary reading (Germany) Rom. 13v8-14. What a great text for the Advent of the Christ. It don’t get much more radical than this: the Kairos is now, therefore awaken out of your slumber, take off the deeds of darkness, take up the weapons of light, put on Christ, love your neighbour and remember its not all about filling yourself full. This is real insurrection stuff that our self serving, consumerist, loveless world needs to experience. We owe it to them!
November 26th, 2009 at 8:59 am
[...] Peter Rollins replied numerous times in the comments at the JesusManifesto and also on his own blog here. Kester Brewin has also chimed in [...]
November 27th, 2009 at 2:54 am
Peter and Mark,
If either or both of y’all can make it to South Bend, Indiana I would love to buy a couple of rounds. There’s a great Irish pub on Main Street with quite a selection.
One thing I’ve started doing only very recently is (trying to, sometimes I forget) closing my comments with “Peace be with you.” I’ve found that forces me to make sure that what I am writing is something that I can genuinely call an expression of my hope that God’s reign of shalom will be furthered through my contribution to the discussion. It doesn’t mean I won’t throw off some sparks, but it does force me to gut-check and make sure I’m being constructively critical instead of just angry. It’s helped me, at least.
November 27th, 2009 at 10:47 am
I have wondered whether I should say this at all or keep it to myself. For I should not lie to deprive spiritual combat of its freshness, neither would I like to see aesthetic and intellectual enthusiasm and the blessing of intellectual love of God replaced by the tired imagination of an old man, of which, I hope, you are not suspecting me! Permit me at this point to expose the intellectual hypertrophy of the theological aesthete–and who would deny that such types are found in many theological [pubs]?–as a very real disease, though at times it may be a wholesome fever.
My plea is simply this: every theological idea which makes an impression upon you must be regarded as a challenge to your faith. Do no assume as a matter of course that you believe whatever impresses you theologically and enlightens you intellectually. Otherwise suddenly you are believing no longer in Jesus Christ, but in [Ched Meyers], or in one of your other theological teachers.
One of the most difficult experiences for a theological instructor to combat arises out of the fact that good, respectable theology–by no means only dissolute theology bristling with heresy–for the reasons I have mentioned, threatens our personal life of faith. Faith must mean more to us than a mere commodity stored in the tin can of reflection or bottled in the lecture notebook, whence at any time it may be reproduced in the brain.
Meanwhile, a completely new style of thinking steals over us. We no longer say, as the man of prayer does, “Lord Jesus Christ, Thou hast promised,” but we say, “The Kerygma discloses to us this and that.” So long as this difference remains part of the technique of our theological handicraft, no objection can be made to it. This technique needs the essential codes and the academic vocabulary previously agreed upon. In our work, so to speak, we cannot constantly be speaking in the language of liturgy. But for how many people has not this difference meanwhile become something much more, a symptom of one’s condition of faith or, rather, the loss of substance in that condition of faith?
Thielicke, Helmut (1962). “A little exercise for young theologians.”
This is a quote I read in my down time yesterday. It’s from a book in my mom’s library. Seems to fit, though, at least from where I’m sitting (on a semi-fake leather couch).
November 30th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
I’m going to change the subject here and briefly say that if anyone considers Peter a friend and is tech-savvy, please help him fix the smiley’s in the comments so that they are not monsters…please.
:0
November 30th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
November 30th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Jason, as I began to read that I was wondering if you had contracted Asperger’s Syndrome due to your exposure to me. I’m glad to see it was a quote. No intervention necessary. (I’d do a smiley, but I don’t want one of those big scary faces to pop up)
December 1st, 2009 at 7:39 am
Very mature, Pete! I’ll ask you the same question my wife regularly asks me, “How old are you?”
December 2nd, 2009 at 6:32 am
Hey Pete!
Just wanted to give you kudos on ‘pyro-starter’ and i agree it is good to have some fight in you…that’s what it means to bring an insurrection of love on doesn’t it? LOL
Would love to see if there is any way we could partner?? Like what you do here. Will get the book soon…excited about it… Let me know bro!