Salt and Cotton

I just finished reading How (Not) to Speak of God by Peter Rollins (on the second try!).  It is not an easy read - I think a lot of it went right over my head, but the parts I did understand were very interesting.

It seems to be mostly rejecting the binary thinking of modernism.  In Chapter 2, he talks about how God is both transcendent and immanent. Instead of treating them as opposites, he compares transcendence to the sun. You can't really look at the sun without being overwhelmed by its light. In the same way, God is so present that we are overwhelmed by his presence.  Okay, so I didn't explain that very well - this is the part I am having trouble understanding!

In Chapter 3, he discusses apologetics.  He says there are two main types of apologetics.  Both try to compel people to believe "regardless of their motives or the nature of their desire." (p. 36)  Rather than trying to have all the answers, he says the job of the Church is to help people ask the questions that will lead them to seek God, and have faith that those who seek will find. 

Throughout the book, he talks about interpreting the Bible.  We are naturally interpretive. When I look at something, I don't see it just as shapes and colors, but my brain tells me what it is. It interprets the data provided by my eyes and other senses. In the same way, we cannot read the Bible in a neutral, bias-free way.  We always bring our background, experiences, church traditions, etc.  But if that's true, does that mean that there are infinite ways to interpret the Bible?  He says no and explains it with math. :)  Infinity describes the endless set of numbers.  Transfinite is the infinite set of numbers between two numbers (like between 1 and 2, there is 1.2, 1.3. 1.31, etc.)  So while there are many ways we can understand something in the Bible, there are limits on it.  While people may disagree on exactly what "God is love" means, it can't mean to hate others.

In the last chapter, Rollins uses an illustration to explain how different denominations can both be "correct."  Two camels are both traveling to market.  One is carrying salt and the other is carrying cotton.  On the way, they have to cross a river. On reaching the opposite bank, the camel carrying the salt finds new strength and increases its pace (since the river dissolved part of the salt). The camel carrying the cotton, on the other hand, quickly collapses under its burden of soaking wet cotton. He compares different churches and denominations to the river.  It affected the camels differently because of what they were carrying. Churches can be the same.  A church may help one person grow while burdening or oppressing someone else. This is something I really need to remember - just because a church isn't a good place for me doesn't mean it isn't a good place for anybody.

This book has certainly given me a lot to think about.  Some things in the book seem to be things I was already thinking about.  Some are completely new and I'm not even sure I understand them yet.