peter rollins ridiculous

In this parable we are reminded that a religious approach to the text is not one in which we attempt to find out its definitive meaning, but rather where we wrestle with it and are transformed by it. The parable tells us not that a God’s eye view is impossible, but rather that even if it were possible it would not be wanted. Why? Because a God’s-eye view of the truth would not be the truth. We can thus say that any interpretation of a verse that is given to us by God is not a true interpretation of the verse and must be rejected as such. For the problem resides not in having an interpretation but rather in the place that we give to our interpretation. No matter how wonderful our interpretation is, if it occupies an authoritative place then it undermines its own status.
Rollins, Peter (2009-01-29). Fidelity of Betrayal (Kindle Locations 1778-1784). Paraclete Press. Kindle Edition.

Really? A parable? Maybe one Jesus told? Well, let's see...

Is this not the wisdom that is contained in the Jewish parable that speaks of a heated debate taking place in a park between two old and learned rabbis? The conversation in question revolves around a particularly complex and obscure verse in the Torah. It is not the first time that these two intellectual giants have crossed swords over this verse; in fact they have debated it for years, sometimes changing their opinions but never finding a consensus. God is, of course, known to have the patience of a saint, but even God begins to tire of the endless discussion. So finally God decides to visit the two men and tell them once and for all what the parable means. God reaches down, pulls the clouds apart, and begins to speak: “You have been debating this verse endlessly for years; I will now tell you what it means. . . . ” But before God can continue, the two rabbis look up and say, in a rare moment of unity, “Who are you to tell us what the verse means? You have given us the words, now leave us in peace to wrestle with it.”
Fidelity of Betrayal (Kindle Locations 1771-1778).

Umm...no. Nope, not one of Jesus'. In fact, we aren't told where it comes from, just that he calls it a "Jewish parable", which raises the eyebrows, as by and large the ancient Hebrews were noted for their great respect for the Scriptures, except when they were following all the rest of humanity in worshiping idols. One could well imagine that, for example, some ancient false prophet getting honked off at Jeremiah, and making some kind of argument like that.

But, well, moving on...

In my lack of researches, because only modernists care for verifying whether a historical statement is true or not, I've discovered in my imaginative reinterpretation of a biblical account of a time Jesus told a parable and then interpreted it for his disciples the nuclear shadow of an event (or is that an Event) that happened but for whatever reason (probably the fault of those nasty Nicenes) it didn't make into the Bible. But, thanks to me and my ability to deconstruct and find messages hiding in the gaps in the wounds of the text, here is a summary of it.

In Matthew 13, we have the account of Jesus telling several different parables. Verse 36 says that he left the multitude, and went into the house, and his disciples came unto him, say, "Explain unto us the parable of the tares of the field"

Jesus is just getting ready to explain it when there was a sudden commotion, a strange throbbing noise and weird lights, and suddenly a strange, pale man appeared in their midst, wearing strange clothes, and he was speaking very loudly.

"Stop!!" The man said, and yes did so with two exclamation marks. "You can't do that!" This caused some consternation among the disciples, as he was speaking in the English language, which had not yet made it's way into the world. Jesus appeared unfazed.

"My name is Peter Rollins." Said the strange man. "And I've come from the future, because you cannot explain that parable, Jesus.

"No, you can't explain it to them, because if you do, your disciples and all the rest of us will not wrestle with it and be transformed by it. Don't you know that a God's eye view of your parable is impossible, even though you as God told the parable to the people. Even though they have asked you to explain it to them, they don't really want that, because even if it were possible, it is not really wanted. Because any explanation or interpretation you can give would not be the truth, even if you as God give them the God's eye view of the truth. Any interpretaion you as God give to your disciples is not the true interpretation, and so they would have to reject it. Because any interpretation you as God would give would be authoritative, and thus because it is authoritative it would undermine its own status as an authoritative interpretation.

"So, no, Jesus, you cannot explain your parable to them. I command you to be quiet, you traitor! Why, I know about your conspiracy, I know who the really hero of Bible is! It's Judas, I tell you, not you! Oh, no, I know about your conspiracy! You and Lilith and Pee Wee Herman and her little dog, too, and..."

Suddenly, something went "boink" in the time machine this strange man who called himself Peter Rollins was using, and he was shot back to the future very suddenly and more-or-less intact, though there are rumors that parts of his mind have been found floating around in the Mariachi Trench.

So, after a rather startled moment, the disciples looked among themselves and then finally turned to Jesus. Jesus began to speak, answering their original question, and said, "He that sows the good seed is the Son of Man, and the field is the world. The good seed are the sons of the kingdom, the weeds are the sons of the evil one, and the enemy who sowed the weeds is the devil, and the harvest is the end of the world. The reapers are the angels. As the tares are gathered and thrown into the fire, so will it be at the end of the world. The Son of Man will send forth his angels and they will gather out of his kingdom all thing that cause stumbling, and those who do iniquity, and cast them into the furnace of fire, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. And the righteous will shine as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear."

So, yes, I did detect the nuclear shadow of a time-traveling Peter Rollins in that account. Hey, it's just as likely as the myths of Lilith and his conspiracy theory about Judas.

To be plain (I was serious, even in mocking), can one imagine the hubris and arrogance of Rollins' statements? Can you imagine him saying such a thing about any other person? If, let's say, he were a lawyer arguing a case in a courtroom, and he were to claim that the testimony of an expert witness should be ignored and discarded because it is the testimony of an expert? That a professor should be ignored for the simple reason that he's educated and experienced in his field? That, let's say, Gary Kasparov's analysis of a chess game should be discarded because it is given by a former world chess champion and one of the greatest players of all time?

To say that an interpretation that God would give would not be the truth is absolute nonsense, and let's be honest, it's blasphemy.

peter rollins and the pathological love of betrayal

A few days ago, I wrote a bit about how Peter Rollins tries to spin the betrayal of Judas into being a good thing, an act of courage, a sign of devotion to God.

Well, there is another story in his book The Orthodox Heretic, which pretty much puts it plainly.

The story is called "Betrayal", and it and it's short commentary are on pages 117-119. The story is about a temple master who calls his faithful young disciple, and says that he fears the disciple will betray him. The disciple is shocked, and says that he always tries to be faithful to the master's teachings. Here are the master's words, that end the clever little story.

"But you fail to understand, my young friend." replied the Master. "The fact that you have never betrayed my teachings, and the fact that you swear never to betray them; this is to betray them already."

In his commentary, Rollins seems to keep this in the realm of human teachers. But even in that, I think it is problematic. Especially in regards to Christian teachings.

For example, Paul says to "imitate me, as I imitate Christ". Paul does not seem to take the stance that the believers were to practice some kind of "faithful betrayal", as Rollins puts it in the commentary, lest they betray him and his teachings by following them too closely. Now, Paul does seem to recognize areas for differences of opinions, for example when he deals with those who eat meat and those who don't, but he treats most of his teachings as being authoritative, and expects those he writes to to take them seriously, to follow them, and to be faithful to them.

But I think there is more to Rollin's clever little story and commentary. Perhaps I am being unfair, but I think he is going beyond mere human teachers. I think that he is saying that we can betray God by following too closely to what He says in His Word.

I could, for example, point to the story which gives it's name to the whole book, The Orthodox Heretic. In this clever little story, a man gets a message directly from God about a way to act, but he defies God, saying "I do not need the Scriptures or your words to tell me what I ought to do", and "So, my God, I defy you in order to remain faithful to you", p 97. Rather than being angry with the man, the story ends with God seeming to be rather pleased with this man's act of defiance.

I suppose the contrasts could not be more plain--the disciple in the "Betrayal" betrays the teacher by being too faithful to the master's teachings, while the man in "The Orthodox Heretic" defies God in order to remain faithful to God.

And the message could not be more plain--the rebels are the saints, the disobedient are the shining examples, the traitors are the faithful, those who shake their fists at God in defiance to His Word are those who are most pleasing to God. God doesn't want you to follow His Word, but to strike out on your own.

Again, it seems Rollins is most interested in spinning his own betrayals into having been good things. I rather suspect that, consciously or not, Rollins knows that what he teaches is against God, is against God's Word, is contrary to sound doctrine, is actually a betrayal of what God has revealed. But instead of repenting, he would rather do what is right in his own eyes, and wants to justify his ways in the eyes of the world. That is why Judas becomes a figure of courage in his clever little story, why the faithful disciples is the real traitor, why the man who stands in defiance against God is the one who is faithful to God.

peter rollins and the brave little traitor

By and large, most of the stories Rollins writes in his clever little book have an element of the disturbing in them, like creepy little kids in horror movies. I don't know if "The Mission of Judas" is necessarily the most disturbing, but, really, given that name and the contents, it's definitely up there. This story and commentary can be found on pp. 100-103.

So, as the title says, this story is about Judas. He's having a bit of a nap, and having a dream. He's dreaming that he's going to betray Jesus, Jesus is going to die, and he himself is going to commit suicide over what he has done. But he also sees Christ's resurrection and ascension, how Jesus' message would somehow bring down Rome and change the lives of many people. Judas awakens, recalls Jesus' words about His death, as recorded in John 12:23-25, and realizes what he is suppose to do, what he is destined to do. He's suppose to betray Jesus, and insure that the things in his vision happen.

As Rollins himself explains his commentary...

Here we are led to conceive of Judas as one of the most courageous figures in the Bible, as one who betrayed Christ, not because of a love for money or because he had been overpowered by some demonic influence, but rather because he knew what would result from that betrayal.

By understanding the complexity of the betrayal, we are led to consider whether certain acts that might appear to be fundamentally against God could actually be gestures of fidelity to God.

So, let's take this way of thinking to other areas, shall we? Join me, please, if you have the stomach for it. Because you may need to breathe into a bag before this is over.

Let's image it's the 1940s, Europe. Imagine there's a man who really loves the Jewish people. He loves them so much, that he works tirelessly to hand individuals and families of Jewish people over to Nazi Gestapo goons. He helps to herd them into overcrowded train cars, watches as they are hered naked into gas chambers, then listens as the gas is put into the chambers and the people die horribly. He feels bad, of course, but he knows that only in doing this can a greater good be accomplished.

Now, let's imagine some parents, who have several children. They love their children, so in order to make sure the children have a bright future and are good people, they withhold food from their children to the point of starvation, keep them chained to radiators, routinely abuse them physically and mentally, sell their children so others can do very bad things to them, and pretty much do all the things good parents don't do to their children. But they know that, if they do these horrible things to their children, one will become a doctor who cures cancer, one will become an astronaut who leads the first manned expedition to Mars, one will become a Senator. Of course, one deals with psychological problems from the abuse well into adulthood, and another becomes a homeless guy who drowns himself in alcohol and drugs and dies namelessly in an alley, but that's just the price that must be paid for so much good.

I hope you've enjoyed those two scenarios as little as I have. And don't feel ashamed if you did have to breath into a bag.

But I hope, as well, that these scenarios have shown the completely evil premise behind Rollins' evil little story.

Judas was no hero. He was not courageous. He was a traitor. He got greedy, and there was a dark spiritual influence on him too, and he betrayed our Lord into the hands of those who killed Him. It is irresponsible, nay even evil, for Rollins to try to make Judas into a hero.

But is it not telling the Rollins tries to make a traitor into a hero? Is it not revealing that Rollins tries to say that Judas' betrayal was some kind of an act of fidelity to God? Such a thing seems to say more about Rollins than about anyone else--the desire to make the traitor into the hero, the desire to make an act of betrayal an act of faith, the want and even need to make a greedy and demonic act into one of staggering bravery.

Perhaps Rollins is less interested in justifying Judas than in justifying himself.