In this episode of Drunk Ex-Pastors we welcome to the studio philosopher and theologian Peter Rollins, after whose Lucky Charms they always are. We discuss everything from Radical Theology to La La Land, tackling such topics as whether any of us truly knows what we believe, and whether atheism vs. theism is a false dichotomy (and on that note, you’ll be surprised to hear which one of us Pete thinks believes in God the most). Pete’s background in psychoanalysis will surely make everyone who listens feel like they’ve had a therapy session, and his accent will make you wonder if he has in fact met Bono.
Also, Pete is biebered by biebers.
Podcast #148: To Hell with Healthcare
Podcast #233: Everyone’s Agnostic
Podcast #470: Languishing, Sc-fi, and Taylor Swift
Podcast #51: Amber Waves of Jesus
Great discussion- I loved the grace stuff. Knowing that you don’t have to do anything is what really is the catalyst to change.
As a Protest….tant, I’d rather stick with the biblical texts than revert to the existentialists, Freud or Marx. However, maybe I really don’t believe that- just kidding. I do think we need more challenges to our faith and beliefs so I found the discussion engaging to listen to. Peter should be a regular guest on the show. It made for a great audio experience.
Congratulations on your first very interesting interview! I think the big difference guys is interviewing people about their ideas and not their life story.
The little girl in the intro is ADORABLE!
I don’t have any idea what Rollins believes…. but neither does he so I guess that’s the point. Continental philosophy at its best lol
I think interest is “in the eye of the beholder.”
Agreed!
That little girl is my daughter Fiona, and yes, she is adorable (albeit a huge pain in the ass as well!).
The “well fuck you” line at the end made me spit out my coffee in glee
Super cute! My 4th boy will be born next month! No girl for us : /
Do you know why Rollins thinks that naming God as a being degrades his existence? I’ve only ever heard that “being” was greater than not “being” and was frustrated that Pete didn’t explain his position. Is there a link? Or do you know the answer?
Just for clarity, the idea I’m thinking of is sin or evil as a deprivation and goodness as being itself. Rollins apparently has a totally different view, but I’m not willing to read an entire book to understand it lol
He would understand sin in ontological terms rather than moral ones. It is the lack we are born with that we try to fill with idols, including God. Overcoming it is being comfortable with the lack and embracing it.
I just finished Insurrection a week or two ago, so this was a well-timed listen. As someone who recently developed a conscious lack of knowing what I think about the divinity of Christ, to say nothing of the physical resurrection from the dead, Rollins’ use of the story of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection to explain how and why we should embrace life and the Other is fascinating. It also made Christian’s insistence on asking what he “believed” kind of annoying. What Rollins is trying to say can be incorporated by each of the conscious believer, the unconscious believer, the conscious unbeliever and the unconcious believer. He also provides an interesting view on Christian’s oft-asked question that if universalism is true, why do Christ, his example or his teachings matter? I think an answer is that most of us, if left to our own devices, will pursue our own pleasure or try to fill the gap in Rollins’ terms. But getting what we think we want or what we think will fill the gap is worse than not getting it. Learning to embrace a life devoted to loving your neighbor even though the religious god was killed on the cross is a better way. Because the debt system responsible for paying one’s way to heaven has been obliterated, we are free to love and embrace the world in a transformative way. And the stories of Christ’s life helps teach us how.
one more thing, if y’all haven’t listened to Sufjan Stevens’ “No Shade in the Shadow of the Cross,” it’s particularly appropriate on the heels of you discussion with Mr. Rollins.
https://youtu.be/qx1s_3CF07k
Yeah, I agree that the most provocative aspect of his theology is the idea that resurrection ushers in a new order of being, a new register in which to live.
Great interview! My only complaint was the mixing. Peter’s voice was much quieter than you guys. So I had to crank the volume in my headphones to hear him. Then when you guys talked it was deafening.
Do you guys record the mics into individual tracts? If you do, you should be able to adjust the volume for for each tract. You could even cut out Jason’s mic when he speaks over Christian.
Yeah, it was annoying. The mics were all at the same levels, but guests don’t seem to be able to stay as close to the mics as we do. We’ve had trouble when we try to raise the guest’s mic level (buzzing). However, an actual sound engineer is helping us figure out what the issue is now, so hopefully we’re good for the next guest. 🙂
Nice! Your podcast already has really great sound quality, so it will be great to get that fixed for when you have guests!
On another note, one of the things I liked about the interview was that Jason knew Peter’s work pretty well, while Christian had just a cursory knowledge of his works. That led to a good variety of questions and an interesting dynamic.
This was the most beautiful, and uncomfortable, conversation I’ve ever listened to. Found myself lighting a cigarette and hoping whatever point was in the process of being made would make me feel better. A lot to to think about, and that’s always the greatest gift. I may be late on this one, but sincerely, you guys are fantastic.