The Fidelity of Betrayal

Only 26 days until the release of The Fidelity of Betrayal, Peter Rollins’ follow-up to the fabulous How (Not) to Speak of God.

This is my most anticipated book of 2008. No one is doing a better job of beginning to navigate and explore a postmodern Christianity. How (Not) to Speak of God really challenged and influenced my thinking about the Church and Christianity in today’s world – more than any other contemporary book (I blogged about it extensively).

Check out an excerpt from The Fidelity of Betrayal.

Here are a couple stand-out quotes from the excerpt:

I am asking if Jesus would plot the downfall of Christianity in every form that it takes. Or rather, to be more precise, I am asking whether Christianity, in its most sublime and revolutionary state, always demands an act of betrayal from the Faithful. In short, is Christianity, at its most radical, always marked by a kiss, forever forsaking itself, eternally at war with its own manifestation.

Such thinking leads to the seemingly paradoxical idea that the deepest way in which we can demonstrate our fidelity to Christianity is to engage in a betrayal of it.


Christianity is not brain surgery or rocket science, it is not quantum mechanics or nuclear physics; it is both infinitely easier and more difficult than all of these. The fragile flame of faith is fanned into life so simply: all we need do is sit still for a few moments, embrace the silence that engulfs us, and invite that flame to burn bright within us. This act is simplicity itself, and, just perhaps, after a lifetime of hardship and struggle, a few of us will achieve it and be set alight by it.


3 Responses

  1. I’m with you, man. I can’t wait. How (Not) to Speak of God rocked my world. I have so many notes in it where I said “I have never heard it said like THAT before. Genius.

  2. “…No one is doing a better job of beginning to navigate and explore a postmodern Christianity…”

    I recently got into Rollins through some random snippet videos on > great stuff. I am a little concerned, though, about the idea of calling ourselves: “postmodern Christians”. The title becomes especially dangerous if postmodernism is in fact as many critics describe: only “inverted modernism” I.E. the flip side of the coin. Postmodernism looks much more like liberalism from that perspective anyways*

    The main issue I have, however, is that “post modern” implies the replacement of “modernity” with a new and better system: “postmodernity”. “Postmodernity” will soon become another corrupt system that warrants the arrival of “post-postmodernity”. It seems like exactly the thing Rollins calls us to betray: trust in a movement, a movement defined by a label (and sub-label) like “christians” or “postmodern”

    Wendell Berry has a great article about the err of this kind of trust in movements, written from an ecological perspective. @

    Berry is an amazing author that Brian McLaren (for instance) refers to a lot.

    Hope I have contributed!

  3. Wonderful post however I was wanting to know if
    you could write a litte more on this subject? I’d be very thankful if you could elaborate a little bit further. Many thanks!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: