(This is an initial review of the book, based on an advanced copy I was given by the publisher. Once the work is released to the general public I will revisit it.)
Peter Rollins is out to destroy religion, and that’s something I can resonate with easily. In his new book Insurrection he writes about the errors of religion and the crutch of its false god. Yet, Rollins’ understanding of the distinction between true Christianity and religion is skewed, and in his efforts to abolish religion he ends up abolishing God too.
Rollins views the crucifixion of Jesus as the end and destruction of religion. But here he doesn’t simply mean the legalistic practices of people that distract us from the gospel. Rather, he means the view of life that sees everything as working towards an ultimate plan ultimately controlled by a sovereign God. That religion, he says, dies at the cross where Jesus cries out, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me.” Our participation in this crucifixion means laying down that worldview and that concept of God. We must embrace the pain, the darkness, and the uncertainty that are real. In place of this “religion” Rollins says the Resurrection points us to a new way of living and thinking of God. God is not an object to be loved, but he is found in the very act of loving others (123).
Rollins is a contemporary Christian Atheist. He and his books are fascinating, colorful, and thought-provoking, but Insurrection is as much an oxymoron as is the label Christian Atheist. The reality is that there is nothing distinctly Christian about this book and its views. I don’t recommend it.
Sparrow & Heart Soul Care 
I’ve read Peters book, and discussed each chapter in our SS class. It was fun. I agree with your conclusion “There is nothing distinctly Christian about this book and its views.” However, I don’t see how that connects with your next statement “I don’t recommend it.” Do you only recommend “Christian” books? How do you know which is which? I suppose you are relying on your own heritage of traditions? the apostle’s creed? I think Peter’s point is that Jesus has been co-opted by religious people whose view of the world is perverted by religious labels like “Christian” and “Not Christian”. Peter’s point is that Jesus is about the redemption of everything, and so labels like “Christian” are basically anti-Jesus. It’s all Christian — or it’s all non-Christian — make your choice, but either one is more Christian than religious segregation.