Wednesday, February 03, 2010

Resurrection = Insurrection: in which I prove once again that I'm incapable of serious thought

I think this floated by in my twitter stream. I don't know much about Peter Rollins, except that he wrote a book called The Orthodox Heretic and a book of parables. I've been on his blog a few times, and thought I was out of my depth. But, you know, it was hard to pass up a teaser like "Resurrection = Insurrection" (the tag line for his blog is "To believe is human; to doubt divine", which makes me want to get hold of his book). So I pressed play.

Resurrection = Insurrection

Great stuff - so much more interesting than the Westminster Catechism.

Now, what do you think my first thought was when I played this?

Do you want to know?

C'mon, guess.

Hit play yourself. You don't have to watch the whole thing (though it would be well worth your time).

*drums fingers*



My first thought was "Wow, he's hot." Yep. Here's this theologian delivering a really great message about Christ and transformation and my first thought is that he's cute and his accent slays me. My second thought was "Why the hell are they filming him leaning against a wall?" What is it with religious films and funky camera hijinks? I watched a series of videos in which the camera was positioned so that every speaker delivered his message to the air on my left. The director was determined that you were never going to see the speaker head-on. And then of course there are the Nooma videos, which I love but, you know, they have that self-conscious look to them, the "I'm a Christian but I'm not that sort of Christian who decorates with Precious Moments figurines and Thomas Kinkade prints." Which I fully appreciate, don't get me wrong. I'm a snob.

I'm not just a snob; I'm a shallow snob.

But, seriously, what he says about the narrative self and the true self has me thinking. It's a topic I've pondered a lot, particularly since I have one deliberately evasive "good Christian" narrative self for work and another for play and another when I want to appear intellectual (I'm so not spinning that narrative at the moment) and so on. If there is a true self (wow, that sounds really weird to someone raised on postmodernism) I'm not sure who she is. I don't think that I demonstrate love, unless love for my family counts. That seems very insular. I know I'm not participating in a global transformation, important as I think it is. When you get right down to it, I'm self-serving, self-focused, and self-centered, all of which I try to spin into amusing commentary.

Ha! And here's Lent right around the corner...


  1. Husband dearest has several of his books, none of which I've ever been tempted to read. I agree with Ira, it must be the scarf.

  2. The hair.....

    I know I've read one of his books, but can't remember why I liked it. . .

  3. Ira - I wasn't sure that was a scarf. It looks like he's wearing a hoodie backwards.

    Mompriest: yes, the hair is rather adorable.

    Petty: I don't know. The accent gets me. I love British and Irish accents. I'm easily distracted by them.

    Jan: I have to get hold of a book and see if I have enough brain to read it.

    He's coming to town, so perhaps I will see him live.

  4. Alice, relax.
    he is hot, for sure and he damn well knows it and is exploiting it. Otherwise he'd have a haircut and wear a suit and be boring. It's deliberate use of natural assets. Would you listen or look at him if he was like the back end of an old camel? no. Most people woulnd't. The human race is collectively programmed to respond more readily to the physically attractive.
    shame but true.
    Its not a scarf, btw, it's a buff(google it)which are the hottest male accessory going.

  5. Zen: Yes, I'm definitely programmed to respond readily to Irishmen with scruffy hair, radical theology and a tight pair of jeans. So that's a buff in action.

    Ira: LOL - nice turn of phrase.

  6. i love peters stuff it grabs me and few things do that thanks for posting