Peter Rollins on God, Gin and Zombies (Homebrewed CultureCast)

Peter Rollins on God, Gin and Zombies (Homebrewed CultureCast) November 26, 2012

This week, Jordan Green and Christian Piatt mosey up to the bar for a chat with pyro-theologian Peter Rollins, author of “Insurrection” and the forthcoming “The Idolatry of God” (Jan, 2013). They talk about the Death Drive, why billionaires aren’t actually selfish and how we’ve made an idol out of the beliefs we often claim as central to our Christian faith.

We also talk about the proper way to make a Hendricks gin and tonic, whether IPAs are better in the states or across the pond, and what theological themes we can glean from the AMC zombie show, “The Walking Dead.”

Jordan and Christian also break down the mostest awesomest inventions of the year, Elmo, David Petraeus and internet privacy, and a handful of recommendations you simply have to check out if you claim to have an actual life that has any meaning.

Not really, but it’s pretty good stuff.

Listen to the Episode HERE

Subscribe on iTunes Here!

Subscribe on iTunes!

"In reading this list, I'm almost certain Christian Pratt is a not Christian... well, in ..."

10 Cliches Christians Should Never Use
"https://intimacywithgod.comPursuing Intimacy With God Bible studies on Intimacy With God, Key Things for Intimacy With ..."

25 Christian Blogs You Should Be ..."

Browse Our Archives

TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • thenewrobdavis

    Hey man, just finished the interview this morning. Always interesting to listen to Rollins.

    But, I was honestly surprised about one seemingly insignificant comment that you made, which Rollins did not respond to. You seemed to be differentiating between “true” and “false” conceptions of God. As far as I can follow Rollins, he seems to be proposing that there is actually no “true” conception of God – that this kind of distinction is actually part of the problem in traditional Christianity to be deconstructed.

    Was this intentional? If so, what do you mean by a “true” opposed to a “false” conception of God?

    • Hey man, I don’t recall making such a distinction in particular, but I did talk with him about “false constructs” becoming something we worship. In that context, any contracut/understanding/image of God we hold is inherently a false construct, and as I understand Pete’s position, it would be necessary to recognize as much and to release that as a false/limited/incomplete (or worse custom-tailored0 image of God, which is actually an idol). I think you’ll find this to be consistent with his new book, the Idolatry of God, but I could be wrong, of course.

      • thenewrobdavis

        I think I was also importing into your use of the word “false” the dichotomy you mentioned in your other comment. I guess, for me, I would hesitate to use the word “false” – but I’m not really sure why. For now, I will blame my childhood.

    • I think there may be a western/modern assumption that if something (ie a conscious construct of God) is false, there necessarily has to be a “true” construct to be found. But I don’t think that’s the case here; all constructs we have of God are false.

      • thenewrobdavis

        Thanks for the clarification.

        I am probably importing a negative/”bad” connotation into the idea of “false,” rather than reading it as “incomplete” or something like that.

        Jamie Smith’s “Fall of Interpretation” was helpful for me here, proposing that our inherent “condition” as interpreters is not something to be overcome, but something to be seen as a blessing.

        • That makes sense. I think it’s a fine line between embracing it as a blessing without giving those constructs undue power. Being onto ourselves is an ongoing process, for sure.