RVL resonates with Bell

A while back I mentioned that something Ray Vander Laan said reminded me of something I had heard out of the emerging church.

During RVL’s talk he described Matthew’s account of Jesus and Peter walking on the water. RVL said that Peter didn’t lose faith in Jesus (because Jesus was right in front of him); he lost faith in himself. In other words, Peter didn’t believe he actually could be like his rabbi (which was the highest aspiration of ever disciple).

So, when Jesus said, “You of little faith. Why did you doubt?” He was saying, “Why did you doubt yourself and your (Spirit empowered) ability to follow me?” RVL was sure to include the “Spirit empowered” qualification.

I’ll let somebody else critique RVL’s exegesis here; I want to share where emerging church pastor Rob Bell takes this. (Bell, by the way, is enamored with RVL. As best I can tell, Bell takes RVL’s teachings to places RVL didn’t/doesn’t envision.)

Anyway, here’s a quote from Bell’s Velvet Elvis, “God has an incredibly high view of people. God believes that people are capable of amazing things. I have been told that I need to believe in Jesus. Which is a good thing. But what I am learning is that Jesus believes in me. I have been told that I need to have faith in God. Which is a good thing. But what I am learning is that God has faith in me.” (134)

Before I go further, my purpose isn’t to bash Bell (or RVL); Bell has a lot of great stuff and he’s absolutely right about several things. Here, however, I struggle to take him seriously.

“God has an incredibly high view of people.” Does he read the Bible I read?

“God has faith in me.” Really?

I know one of the characteristics of the emerging church is a hesitancy to define terms with precision (and I’ll admit that endless definitions of terms can be tedious at best). EC prefers “messy” theology – by which they mean a more eastern approach of story/question/conversation in contrast to the western’s proposition/answer/definition. In many ways it’s a helpful corrective. Despite the dryness of definitions, however, they’re essential for conversation. If you don’t know what another means, how can you converse?

So, how does Bell define “believe”? Belief in God is a “good thing”? Isn’t it a saving thing? Does God believe in us in the same way we believe in Him?

How does he define “faith”? Faith in God is a “good thing”? Isn’t it by faith alone in Christ that we are saved? Does God have faith in us in the same way we have faith in Him?

At some point we have to define terms. As much as EC likes things messy, they are going to have to define terms to carry on their conversation. Otherwise their conversation will become as meaningless as the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification between Rome and The Lutheran World Federation.

Perhaps someone else has thoughts on this? Maybe I missed Bell’s point altogether. Let me know.