Peter Rollins on Orthodoxy, Doxology and The End of Religion
February 28th, 2008 by iMonk
In the book Rising from the Ashes, Becky Garrison interviews emerging church leader Peter Rollins, author of How (Not) to Speak of God and the soon to be released The Fidelity of Betrayal: The Ir/Religious Heart of Christianity.
Rollins has always intrigued me. Some of his ideas are difficult to grasp, but in this interview he does a fantastic job of describing some of the essentials of a Jesus-shaped spirituality. While his definition of being a Christian starts out well in the first sentence, it needs help after that, but the rest of this section of the interview is right on target for me.
This interview is taken from Rising From the Ashes by Becky Garrison, pp. 48-49.
Some would say this sounds un-Orthodox.
Peter Rollins:….The word today has taken on a rather unhelpful Enlightenment-influenced definition as “correct belief” - the ability to affirm a certain creedal formation. However, in the more ancient tradition the doxa of orthodoxy does not refer to belief bit rather to praise. We see this in the word doxology, which doesn’t mean belief, but rather worship. So, orthodoxy actually means correct praise not correct belief. In that kind of a way, it becomes less about the affirmation of a theological approach- important as theology is- but a way of being like Jesus. We have to rediscover this idea that orthodoxy isn’t belief oriented but praxis oriented. In this way the approach I outline isn’t unorthodox if it helps to bring people back to wonder and praise…whether it does or not is of course open to question.
What then is the task of orthodoxy?
Peter Rollins: The answer to that is simple, and yet infinitely complex, for to be orthodox is to bring praise to God through one’s life. While people these days are asking the question, “Is Christianity true?” the more fundamental question must be, “What does Christ mean when he uses the word truth?” The reason I am asking that question is that when Jesus talks about the truth, he talks about life. The truth is what brings life. My axiom for today is that Christianity at its core doesn’t explain life but it brings life. We must thus ask whether our beliefs and actions bring life, healing and love to the people in the world. To bring live into the world is to know God for God is love. This is not the knowledge of creeds and theology but the knowledge of a transforming relationship with the source of all love. Truth in Christianity is thus different from the way we understand truth in the world, for the truth of Christianity is life, not description. This is what I talk about heretical orthodoxy, i.e. someone who does not understand God yet who changes the world in love.
What then does it mean to be a Christian?
Peter Rollins: It means entering into a journey of becoming one. It does not mean accepting a worldview but rather entering into a healing journey of life… To be a Christian also means that one is committed to exploring this life through the Judeo-Christian tradition, wrestling with it, learning from it, and being transformed by it. Being a Christian means learning how to be the opening of life into the world.
Why do you call Jesus a subversive prophet who signaled the end to all religious movements?
Peter Rollins: One of the most interesting things about Christianity is that Christ both founded a religion and yet signaled the end of all religions. Jesus said there will come a time when we worship in spirit and in truth rather than on one mountain or another….Christ thus can be seen as founding an irreligious religion, i.e., a religion that critiques the idea of religion, a religion without religion. This is one way of understanding deconstruction.
The distinction between correct belief and correct praise is interesting, and I think biblical. There is at least one example, but I’m pretty sure there are more, where we see talk about our knowing God to be not necessarily a knowledge of God, but rather God’s knowledge of us (Gal 4:9 for example). So can we ever have fully correct belief or knowledge of every, or any, aspect of God? In addition, we see an inability of man to move past the point at which he currently is. That is, a man may not always have correct belief, because it may not have been given to him, or he may simply not have the mental capacity at the time, or ever, to understand a certain theological matter. But we can always show correct praise through Christ, regardless of how much of Scripture we understand, or whether or not we have a neurological disorder that prevents us from maturing to comprehend abstract ideas. At least that’s my understanding of the subject.
I think I agree with the answer to the question about being Christian, but I think maybe a better phrase than “a worldview” would be “personal convictions,” like how many beers you should have a week, or whether or not Roe v. Wade should be overturned. I think a worldview is more of a holistic thing, and in a sense to be a Christian, your worldview would have to change drastically. But what I think he’s trying to get at is that before all that, before one comes to a conclusion about all the more mundane matters of everyday morality, one must first know Jesus. Then the rest can follow, and indeed cannot be expected of a person who does not know Christ, nor does it carry any significance whatever without that relationship. If that is indeed what he is saying, then I agree.
stamati anagnostou
A Brother is Born Blog
Peter says “However, in the more ancient tradition the doxa of orthodoxy does not refer to belief bit rather to praise. We see this in the word doxology, which doesn’t mean belief, but rather worship. So, orthodoxy actually means correct praise not correct belief.”
Early Church history shows that a lot of the activity in the Church was focused on correct belief vs. heresy. The early councils and much of the Patristic writings were focused on dealing with the various “wrong beliefs” and correcting them.
Peter’s view of orthodoxy does not have historical merit.
Interestingly, the creeds explicitly address belief, don’t they? (”We believe…”) They explicitly summarize belief, don’t they? But, then again, it makes little sense to set up belief against worship. After all, a major aspect of worship is the expression of our beliefs, right?
And, lexicographically and historically speaking, is it really accurate to say doxa means praise rather than belief, or even praise more than belief? It has been a few years since my year of NT Greek, but my foggy memory and a quick internet search suggest otherwise.
I’m a philosophy student now, and we talk about funny things like ‘reliable doxastic practices’, which has to do with being careful about how your beliefs are formed. Here doxastic simply means ‘pertaining to belief or things like beliefs’.
Philosophers, at least those of us who don’t have a belly full of the Continental Cool-Aid, get worried when people accuse things of being ‘Enlightenment-influenced’.
And regardless of how Jesus used the word ‘truth’, the question of the truth of statements like ”God is reconciling the world to himself in Jesus” remains meaningful and important. Jesus used ‘truth’ to refer to the real, to himself as the reality to which the types and shadows in the OT theocracy pointed. Fine. That is a great way to use the word! You can use it that way too, if you like! But there is something else for which the word ‘truth’ is used. And this thing, whatever it is exactly, can’t be dumped just because Jesus wasn’t referring to it when he used the word ‘truth’ in those passages. Jesus was simply talking about something different.
Thanks Michael for this. Peter has many interesting and stimulating ideas, and his apophatic theology has the capacity to delve into the depths.
Well, on orthodoxy being right praise. Ortho-doxy is not built upon orthos + doxa/praise but more on orthos + dokeo/doxa/opinion, and the latter is about right thinking. The two work hand in hand, in fact, and bad thinking will not lead to right praise.
How does one know they are worshipping the true God without belief?
How do we know what life is without a correct definition which leads to doctrinal belief?
How do we know what love is without a correct definition which leads to a doctrinal belief?
Can one be sincere in their worship of God and yet be wrong?
The idea that one can be a Christian and yet not adopt a Christian worldview is somewhat of a weird thing to say.
I absolutely believe that mere affirmation of creeds is not enough, one’s life must be transformed by truth (sanctified) if one truly is a believer in Christ.
But to somehow disconnect living the truth from believing the truth and say this is what Christ (or any prophet or apostle) taught is absurd. Correct belief and correct worship are interconnected and inseperable.
From what this guys says I’m left wondering if he really believes that Jesus is true God and true man or just another clever person with a message. Jesus is the answer but he seems to be pointing more to a process.
I understand Rollins to be saying that coming to properly express our faith in Jesus through worship is a process, and a process with an important personal dimension that takes place outside of our conversations about the Jesus we ‘know’, the Jesus at whom the theological and philosophical axioms presume to start with - an ‘answer’ can’t be worshipped, but a God who became man certainly requires we step outside of ourselves to know, love, and serve him.
Hey. Someone sent me this link. Thanks for posting the interview and thanks for the critical engagement. One thing I should clarify is my comment on the word ‘orthodoxy’. My answer makes it sound as if I am saying that the word can be unproblematically reinterpreted as ‘right praise’ i.e. as ‘believing in the right mode’ or ‘composing oneself in a suitable manner to God’.
The lack of clarity in this interview is my fault. What I am really wanting to do is to re-affirm the usefulness of the word by showing that it can be (re)interpreted outside a strictly epistemological frame. Etymologically speaking the word is generally associated closely with creeds etc., however I am interested in the undecidability at work in the word between doxa as belief and doxa as praise.
By saying that I think there is a more ancient tradition which affirms orthodoxy as ‘right praise’ (a definition which, of course makes room for epistemology without giving it the best seat) I am referring to the idea that this resonates with what Jesus was up to.
I am adopting a similar strategy to the one I used regarding the word ‘heresy’. While understanding that the word generally refers to something bad I would argue that there is a positive revolutionary potential housed within it that I am keen to explore.
By returning to the revolutionary event hinted at in the word ‘orthodoxy’ I am rejecting the orthodoxy/orthodpraxis distinction. For I would argue that both are already at work within the word orthodoxy itself.
Rollins’ answer to what constitutes being a Christian was soggy bread. Not impressed. Maybe I have Rollins all wrong, but obtuse emergentspeak is getting old. Fast.
Amy, you have every right to your opinion, BUT when you do express yourself, PLEASE explain your disagreement. i am a good friend of Pete’s and i dont always agree with him. But a sweeping statement you make, “Rollins’ answer to what constitutes being a Christian was soggy bread.” needs clarification as to WHY?!!! Thanks and i look forward to your reply!
E. Punk,
I appreciate the kind spirit of your question. I found Rollins’ answer to the question to be so fuzzy, I honestly had a difficult time understanding exactly *what* he was saying. “Exploring life through the Judeo-Christian tradition.” Huh?
Scripture speaks with clarity and potency about what being a Christian is. Therefore, I am troubled when someone such as Mr. Rollins has an opportunity to speak with clarity and potency and instead gives me “soggy bread.”
Hope that helps. thanks.