text: The author writes a book that does give you a mental workout while giving valuable insight into the theological/philosophical foundations of the emerging confession. There is value in that. I look forward to reading part two, the liturgical ideas section. The emerging church is keen on praxis, but the theological underpinings of this book in part one reminds me of past mistakes within Christendom, which I had hoped we were past. 
  Here are some things that I am amazed do not occur to the others reviewing this book, which it might help to know:
  
  1. Rollins does not think it's possible to really "know" much theology with "certainty." In fact, to claim to have religious certainty is to hold an "idolatrous" view of God that is more our idea of God than really who God is. This is because it is virtually impossible to be objective for us humans, and because in his view, God was not all that interested in presenting much of Himself in any sort of nailed down way.  The irony I could not miss was the dogmatism with which he himself expresses his own views.
  He is very certain of his interpretations of "perceptive thinkers like Nietzsche, Freud, and Marx," Eckhart, Augustine, etc... and is very certain that his interpretations of the scattered verses from Scripture are correct. I found his use of proof texting for his ideas to be really, really, faulty. As I'm reading along I kept jotting in the margins all the times what he said was a really pretty clear misunderstanding of the New Testament. So, be prepared for a frustrating read if you know the Bible's basic content.  He is certain that no one should be certain, but him. Ok, to be fair, he is not certain if Christianity is true, and says so on page 44, but he is certain that he should not be certain of Christianity. Nor, I guess, should you. With his view of "critique of ideology" how can he be so selective of what he is certain of. This seems like a self-defeating ideology. 
  So strong is his disdain for "knowing" with any real certainty that he would do away with apologetics as if it were no longer appropriate to try to base our beliefs on reason at all. I was reminded of the case Francis Schaeffer made quite well regarding those who do not have any reason to believe something is true, but who take a leap of faith and believe it anyway. Rollins needs to reread his Francis Schaeffer, in my opinion. 
  He says the church is not to be about giving answers, but helping raise in people: questioning. Indeed, given his views, how could he provide answers? This book may look deep. I propose, it is merely muddy.
  
  2. He redefines age old terms. Orthodoxy is no longer about the content of what one believes, but how loosely one holds it. Certainty of revealed truth is dangerous, misinformed, idolatrous. Heresy is now a cute little thing. It has come of age. He says people will think his views undermine Christianity. We are to just take him at his word that his views won't do so, but he does not really make affirmations to give any reasonable comfort and any one would, I think, see the writing on the wall.
   
  3. He seems to think the emerging church is the only hope for unity or evangelism in our time among post moderns. After reading his views I wonder if it is possible for post moderns, those like himself, at least, to even understand the gospel. He has not. How can he be a bridge? To be a bridge one must have footing on both shores. Christianity IS based on real events with real content that has been passed down, not without mystery, nor without debate, but in a very real and tangible way. he cannot be a bridge to something by changing that thing to something else.
   
  4. He is right to be kind to people of other religions and to try to learn from them. The problem that is huge, and no one seems to notice, is that he seems incapable of learning or appreciating the Christians who are in other camps. He considers fundamentalists,and by logical extension many evangelicals, to be pharisees and the true heretics in his new definition of the term, heresy. I kept thinking, what kind of "fundamentalists" is he so angry at? He blasts the whole of that group and by extension most evangelicals, making generalizations that are misleading. Very unobjective. Unkind. Very divisive. Yet he thinks only his views can bring unity to Christendom. I can see his views bringing unity to all religions, but it will never bring unity to Christendom. He seems oblivious to the amazing amount of unity that now exists in Christendom. Times have really changed in the past 20 years. He is either unaware or has a different kind of unity in mind. 
  
  5. He makes God hopelessly difficult. God wanted, it seems, to speak in a plain brown wrapper...the common language of the people, the dust of humanity, the lowly donkey ride, the obscure but simple truth of the simple gospel. Rollins has wrapped God up in Nietzsche and while disdaining "human reason" as the means of knowing God has turned the living Christ who said "I am the truth" into an enigma of mental gymnastics that is so complex only man could concoct it. God's message is simple. It's clear where it needs to be. It hints at huge mystery beyond what is stated. Rollins makes it nearly all enigma, hinting at some possible truth out there from a winking God, who says out of one side of his mouth something is important and that we will be held accountable for knowing and obeying it, yet Who has been unwilling or incapable, given man's weaknesses, or His own lack of communication skills, to articulate it in such a way that a person can hold any theological content soundly.
  If, as Tickle says, this is the Christianity of the 3rd millenium, then the Chrisitan faith is about to become the irrational man's religion, the anything goes religion, and following generations will have to deconstruct today's extreme and irrational over-reaction to fundamentalism. Peter, I can learn some stuff from you, and I'm sure some of my perception of what you were trying to say was likely lost in transmission. As it stands now I cannot agree with you on several points. Your views trouble me. Nothing against you personally.  Forgive any kind of perceived condescending tone. I hope to enjoy the rest of your book much more, though, it will for me be an upper story with out a first floor. Regardless, if it inspires I'll come back and add a star. hmmm
  