The Fidelity of Betrayal: Towards a Church Beyond Belief

Peter Rollins discusses a number of fundamental issues related to our reading of the biblical text in chapter 3 of his forthcoming book, "The Fidelity of Betrayal: Towards a Church Beyond Belief" (Paraclete Press, June 2008). Since he covers a lot of ground relatively quickly, we'll see how well I'm able to work with his presentation.

• Let's try to restate Rollins' argument thus far within a few paragraphs; first, in many cases, the nature in which details are recorded in the biblical text, allows for varied or multiple readings of particular events. In addition, the various, and often conflicting accounts of God and his dealings with man makes it impossible to construe the text as a seamless document describing God and his workings in this world in static terms; this is particularly evident when examining examples strewn all-across the Old Testament. One factor that has disoriented our conception of Scripture, making it very difficult to attend to the details of the biblical text as it actually presents itself, and ultimately truncating fruitful appropriation both personally and corporately, has the been the polarization of views regarding the status of the text; on one side stands the mainstream academic arena, and on the other, fundamentalism. The mainstream academy wishes to assert that, in light of readily apparent historical and ethical inconsistencies in the Bible's presentation of God, the Bible can be no more than a human creation. On the other hand, Fundamentalism asserts that all apparent historical and ethical difficulties can be readily explained by the use of rightly developed historical and exegetical tools, and that the Bible is a seamless, revelatory, and inerrant conceptual presentation of God and his actions in this world; past, present, and future. The problem, Rollins claims, is that both contingents in this debate, both conservative and liberal, develop assessments of the text that rest on rationalistic analysis, and as a result, both prevent the reader from moving beyond truth claims to an encounter with the biblical text. To further the point, Rollins points out that the modern doctrine of inerrancy is largely, if not primarily based on a concern to prove that the Bible is historically and conceptually consistent via rationalistic modes of argumentation.



• Now, to interject in the midst of his argument, I think he is right on this particular point about inerrancy and fundamentalism. The doctrine of inerrancy was originally developed in its modern form during a time when historical-criticism and rationalistic modes of argumentation were extremely influential. Fundamentalist biblical theology, armed with its rationalistic methods of inquiry and the doctrine of inerrancy offered the necessary vehicle for sustaining a place from which traditional renderings of the Christian faith could remain cloistered. While, on one hand, the desire to protect a traditional articulation of orthodox Christianity was certainly commendable, I also think its helpful to entertain suggestion that the primacy of place given to inerrancy may have resulted in the stifling of productive Christian theological renderings. This is not to say that the work of the historically oriented exegete has been fruitless, but is merely to say that the power of Christianity and the Bible itself does not rest in our ability to defend the historical veracity of the biblical text



• Now Rollins himself does hold to the position that the Bible is not a seamless, inerrant document; but he also argues that it is not valid to label the character of the text, either divine or merely historically contingent, on the basis of whether or not one believes it either is or is not consistent with itself. In fact, Rollins suggests that the Bible's varied and therefore imperfect conceptual and historical accounting of God is testimony to the fact textual descriptions of God are not capable of describing perfectly that which is largely indescribable. At one point Rollins argues that our systematic, theological conceptions of God, if we are honest, are more closely related to philosophical construal than a sensitive reading of the Scriptural text. Ultimately, Rollins seeks to reassure the reader that, rather than viewing the inconsistencies in the text as an obstacle to faith, one should actually look to the "fissures" in the text as a testimony to, and gateway towards, the infinite God.



• As a compliment to this reading which is based on an openness to the varied contours of the text, Rollins calls for a pre-modern reading that does not turn a blind eye to critical textual issues, but functions out of a willingness to suspend those issues for a time in favor of a religious appropriation of Scripture. The result of all this seems to be to create a platform from which personal and imaginative appropriations or encounters with the text can take place. It must be remembered that, in light of how Rollins develops his conception of the nature of the text, the type of reading he suggests, if his argument is correct, cannot be a suggested reading, but can only be the required reading; the approach to the text is both static and dynamic. Static in the sense that our conception of the text requires a certain type of reading, but dynamic in the sense that the results that can potentially spring forth are the fluid product of the individual.



• Rollins offers such a radical proposal that I am not sure exactly whether or not, at this early point in the book, I am ready to offer critique beyond what I have already given in the first three installments of my review. What I would ask at this point is that, from my rather crude attempt to reconstruct his argument in a relatively short space, would Dr. Rollins be willing to offer clarification or corrections to my descriptions, and, would Dr. Rollins be willing to describe a practical example or examples, from which the value of this type of reading can be seen? In other words, what does this type of reading facilitate for the individual or the church as a whole; how do you think this reading, as the dominant reading, would manifest itself in the life of the church?