The Fidelity of Betrayal: Towards a Church Beyond Belief

I just finished the second chapter of Peter Rollins' forthcoming book, "The Fidelity of Betrayal: Towards a Church Beyond Belief" (Paraclete Press, 2008). Dr. Rollins makes some challenging assertions in this chapter as he offers a few points for comparison between Judas and Abraham; first, he points out that both men were divinely chosen to carry out a murderous task, that both are required to sacrifice one to whom they are intimately connected, and that both displayed the willingness to carry out the injunction. The only difference, Rollins explains, is that Abraham receives Isaac back, while Judas does not receive Jesus back because Judas commits suicide before this could have happened. Ultimately, Rollins claims, the diffeerence between Abraham and Judas is not in what they did, but in how they are perceived. Rollins claims that the Christian theological grid is the basis for this perceived difference, not the text itself.

Now I have couple thoughts here, both positive and negative for Rollins. First, I think his comparison of Abraham and Judas rests on his reading of the events surrounding Judas in the first chapter. For those of you who have read my review of chapter 1, you already know that I find his reading of the text, and more specifically, his reading of the events surrounding Judas, to be an unlikely option. For those of you who have not read my reasoning, it basically runs as follows; Rollins reads the New Testament text without considering the wider cultural milieu that New Testament scholars draw on from available literary evidence (i.e. the Old Testament and other ancient Jewish texts from that general time period). This is important is because it gives us a clear idea of what Jewish eschatological belief (Jewish belief about God's final consummation of all things) entails, and provides a much more plausible reading of the events surrounding Judas' betrayal. It is a reading based on a wide variety of evidence drawn from primary source materials, and not an act of mere creativity. I think, at the very least, Rollins would do well to address the problems that the sythesis of this literature poses for his thesis. In any case, I would recommend that one read my review of chapter 1 before weighing the arguments for oneself.

At the same time, I must applaud Rollins for his continued sensitivity to the biblical text. Consider the following quote:

"To be a biblical literalist means that one attempts to attend to the text as it stands before us rather than importing foreign ideas, regardless of how obvious they may seem. In this way I wish to steadfastly affirm biblical literalism; I wish to stand side by side with the Christian fundamentalist who demands that we let the text speak for itself. Of course I also wish to be informed by the scholars who engage in biblical criticism. But this does not in any way stand opposed to the attempt to attend to the text as we have received it in its final form."

Rollins makes his point with several potent examples, drawing on the Old Testament, while delving into the issue of Old Testament ethics. Now, I am not an Old Testament scholar, and I will be the first to admit that several of the examples he raises represent a very close scrutiny of details, and require rather complex explanations. This is one point where the force of his argument is felt. At the same time, I can't help but question the presupposition he uses to support the line of questioning. Dr. Rollins goes on to assert that for one to explain ethical questions that arise from the narrative on the basis of God's all-encompassing authority or sovereignty, is to wrongly import philosophical constructs into one's reading of the text. Consider the following footnote:

"The idea of God as a being who is unchanging, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent and thus always right is more of a philosophical rendering than a biblical one. In metaphysical theology God is thought to be the perfect being, and perfection is related to the realm of total knowledge, total power, total presence, and absolute oneness. In contrast, the God we encounter in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures seems much more dynamic and messy."

Many of us would simply say, I think, that to reject God's all-compassing authority, sovereignty, and ethical privilege as God is simply unacceptable; I am inclined to do so myself. I think the apostle Paul would agree with this assessment, and Romans 9 seems to provide evidence enough to support this. At the same time, it is not easy to develop ethical synthesis from the varied texts of the Old Testament without significant analysis and interpretive synthesis. I also question whether or not Rollins' call for such a breed of literalist reading is realistic; if one must avoid any synthesis in order to claim that one's reading is a literalist reading. This makes me wonder, if one is to adopt the idea that the conception of God in the Old Testament is messy, inconsistent, and somewhat incoherent, just how he intends to develop a conception of God that's not a "still birth." In other words, how does he intend to develop a conception of God that's worthy of dedication and worship. Not suprisingly, it seems, based on an examination of the table of contents, that the second major section of this book was written to address this issue.