Wednesday, July 8, 2009


For those of use of have read Peter Rollins' How (Not) to Speak of God, and have been shall we say less than impressed with his ability to say very little in such a complicated and convoluted fashion (see Wells quote here), Michael Wittmer has a post on Braketology.

{On [multiple occasions in the past month] I have heard people defend a [heretical] statement by saying that the author told them that he doesn’t necessarily believe everything he writes. According to them, this author, let’s call him [Pete Rollins]—a man who is extremely likeable—can pretty much say anything [e.g., we have no revelation; Jesus may not be alive] as long as he brackets his words with the disclaimer that he may not agree with what he just said.

I have a few problems with this approach:

He elaborates but basically:

(1) It is [annoying].

(2) It is [bad faith].

(3) It is [unloving].

Of course he too reminds us that he may not mean what he says:

I realize that [this post contains some harsh judgments], so I conclude by placing brackets around the entire thing {}. Please remember in your comments that [I may not believe a word of this]. }
His humor is right on. When we don't trust words, or even have the conviction to right in plain words, we have more problems than just the appeal of postmodernism.

A leader who can’t even minimally commit to his ideas gives up the right to claim knowledge. And if he doesn’t know anything, why should you bother to read him? Stated differently, [why should you take his ideas more seriously than he does?]
Check out the whole of the brief post.

No comments:

"The Voyages..." Forays into Biblical studies, Biblical exegesis, theology, exposition, life, and occasionally some Star Trek...