Rollins' primary concern is the perspecuity of Scripture. That is, the clarity of Scripture. The question is can we know and understand God, and everything that flows out of Him, fully and objectively? Is it possible to approach the Biblical text objectively? Rollins begins by laying out how the "contemporary Church" argues that one can. Revelation is the opposite of concealment. Because we have Scripture we can know God objectively.
But Rollins rejects such a notion. We cannot know God objectively, even through the a careful study of Scripture and theology, because we cannot know anything objectively apart from the baggage we bring. Such baggage includes our culture, genes, economic position, influences, experiences, etc. This applies to our theology. We cannot know God objectively because we cannot know anything objectively.
But this shouldn't suprise us. Scripture describes God in contradictory terms. God is both a God of war and of peace, etc. The authors are aware of these inconsistencies but is not concerned with them. Systematic theologians, rooted in an understanding that God can be known objectively, struggle reconciling these inconsistencies. But to the original authors, there was no need to reconcile these inconsistencies.
God is both revealed and hidden in Rollins' assessment. And this is the point. It is foolish to think that any one, regardless of their skill in theology, can know God completely and objectively simply by reading the biblical text. Therefore, we must embrace and celebrate the mystery and hiddenness of God. We must accept the fact that God can be known and yet remains unknown.
To be "transformed" by the mystery of God, Rollins wants his readers to not only do theology, but to live it. Theology is only worth the study whenever it is lived out among other people. Rather than say, here is correct theology, we must go out and live theology.
Rollins has a great concern. As he looks at the contemporary Church he sees countless denominations and needless divisions. The reason for these divisions is that one side argues that the otherside has faulty interpretation of the texts. If Scripture is so clear, then why are there so many divisions? What worse is the false, modernistic notion that any denomination or theologian can have the absolute and correct understanding of God and the biblical text. But we must realize that no one can fully understand God and know, on this side of heaven, correct doctrine.
In the end, Rollins questions the clarity of Scripture. Although he might not see it this way, this is what he is saying. He calls on his reader to live in paradox and mystery. We should embrace the hiddenness of God who is knowable and yet unknowable.
This radically affects the conclusions that we draw regarding theology such as the gospel, morality, truth, ethics, sexuality, etc. If God remains unknowable, even through revelation, what else is unknowable. Emergents almost universally look back at the history of the Church and argue that since she has been wrong on many things, like slavery, after a careful study of Scripture, then perhaps she is also wrong about the gospel, homosexuality, and other important issues. We simply do not know.
Rollins presents perhaps the best argument against Scripture's perspicuity, but in the end is is both dangerous and wrong. Systematic theology does not believe that everything about God can be known, but only the things revealed in Scripture can be known, including His infinite, supernatural existence. No one, at least any good theologian, suggests that God can be known fully, but that what Scripture reveals is clear. What is says about God, though oftentimes difficult to grasp and to fully understand, the gospel, morality, the family, sexuality, etc. is clear enough for Christians to have a worldview that affects all that we are, believe, say, do, think, and defend.