Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Capon, p. 26-27 - Trusting Jesus

Continuing our discussion on Capon, I am embeding pages 26 and 27 here. Comments?

Capon 26

33 comments:

Brian Emmet said...

Thanks for the technical upgrade, Joseph--cool!

Much as I love Capon, I sometimes can't escape the feeling that he gets things about half right... just not sure which half! Let me think about it and get back...

Joseph Holbrook said...

well, don't you think we could say that Luther and Calvin got it about half right? They emphasized things that the Catholic church had neglected, and in the process probably lost some historic Catholic emphases ...

The same is probably true for Capon. I think he is hitting some themes that are in dialectical tension with modern Evangelicalism ... but we don't want to throw out the baby with the bath water, as you have helped me to see before. Emphasis almost always bring distortion ... one thing is emphasized to the exclusion of something else that is overlooked ... and back again.

Brian Emmet said...

Point taken, Joseph. I'm now going to jump ahead and also complain that Capon didn't write the book I had hoped he would have. His emphasis on the Kingdom's catholicity, mystery, present action and call for response seem to overwhelm everything else (specifically, all the places in Scripture where we are told to do some things, and not to do others). Capon's insistence that everyone is already "in" because Christ is already "in" everyone--and I accept his distinction between being an inclusivist and being a universalist; he identifies himself as the former, but not the latter--never gets around to addressing the question "Now what?"

As Capon points out, we are all theologians, and it is possible to do theology well or poorly. Similarly with "the rules," however we might understand the term. If everyone is already "in", and since there is, as Paul wrote and Capon affirms, "no condemnation for those who are in Christ," how does this avoid "sloppy agape"? I expect Capon to respond, "It doesn't! As Hebrews points out, 'the law made nothing perfect,' so don't try to import the law through a back window." That's why I love and hate Capon--I track with him, track with him, track with him, and then suddenly it looks like we're heading merrily off a cliff and I'm tempted to hit the brakes...

Joseph Holbrook said...

is it possible that this book serves as his introduction to the most important themes in the parables, and that he covers some of the other aspects that you find lacking (such as self-denial or discipleship) in his two other sequel books, The Parables of Grace and the Parables of Judgement?....

or is it possible that he is trying to bring a corrective to contemporary evangelical Christianity that tends to be very legalistic, Arminian or, as you say, sloppy agape?

Marquito said...

Joe, I like what I read. Thanks for posting it. I'm not familiar with Capon so I'll have to look up this book.

Although I would argue that it has nothing to do with us "saying yes til we die". It has everything to do with Jesus saying "yes" to us, and our trusting in him, whether we carry that on til we die or not. I believe that is the greatest mystery, and the most mystical aspect of Christ.

Brian Emmet said...

Joseph, I've read eight or ten of Capon's books, and he just doesn't seem to get around to it, so I suspect your second option is the path he's taking... although I'm still puzzled about how he thinks about discipleship, non-sloppy agape, etc. But if he never got around to writing that particular book, we should focus instead on the books he did write!

Marquito, excellent! Yes: Jesus, saying Yes to God and Yes to us (I think both are included, and both necessary, and in that order)... do you think it is important for us to say our Yes to Jesus, or does his Yes cover us all?

Robert said...

Tracking...but lacking. This is, in part, because it is difficult to read the text on my screen. I will give it another look in the AM when my eyes are not tired.

I am with a bunch of Anglicans this week...heavily populated with black African leaders who uphold the catholicity of the Church from the first 600 years before major splits. I know the matter of an undivided Church during that period could be debated.

I am handicapped by not having read the Capon piece...so any attempt to comment is a shot in the dark. I will try to catch up. If there is anything noteworthy from this unique gathering of Africans, Brazilians, Bolivians, Malaysians...and western church leaders committed to what has been believed by the Church at all times in all places, I will attempt to pass it along. I am quite sure you all all would enjoy hanging out with these folks for a few days to look at things through a global south lens. They are catholic, liturgical, orthodox, reformed, evangelical, charismatic and particularly missional. An unusual mix for sure...

Joseph Holbrook said...

hey Robert,

if you go back to the main page on Covenant Thinklings and click on "Fullscreen" above the document, it enlarges the PDF so that you can read it. After you do that, you can also right click on the document to "zoom-in".

Brian: I'm not sure that it is a valid criticism of Robert Farrar Capon to point out what he does not discuss. No one can write a "theology of everything" without losing their principle point. I have read nearly all of Dallas Willard's books, and I do not recall anywhere that he discusses in depth the atonement or soteriology. His life message is discipleship, and thats what he talks about. I also cannot recall C.S. Lewis providing any detailed analysis of end-time prophecy.

Rather than saying that Capon is incomplete, why don't you either outline what you think is missing based on his thesis, or lets talk about the validity of what he actually says. Is is correct in his analysis of left-handed versus right-handed power? Is his interpretation of the meaning of the early parables valid?

by-the-way, if anyone wants to order the book, you can find it used on Amazon.com for $7.98 at this link:

Parables of the Kingdom

or for those who do not have the book, or do not have time to read it, perhaps Brian and I could summarize the major points, parable-by-parable.

John M. said...

Oops, I was waiting for someone to post on the other string -- had a tab set theere. I just now found this new one.

Brian Emmet said...

A quick summarizing for those who haven't been reading along:

1) Capon begins by asserting that Jesus is the key to understanding Scripture, and his parables are key in understanding him. Please see the quote on the first post on this book, the citation that begins, "Openness, therefore, is the major requirement..."

2) Next is the distinction between "right-handed" and "left-handed" (hereafter RH and LH) power. RHP (which, for us humans, is connected to the left side of our brains, the logical, plausibility-loving hemisphere) is direct, straight-line, intervening power; Capon defines it as "use the force you need to get the results you want" and affirms that it has its place and its uses... except that God, especially God-in-Christ seems not to operate that way.
LHP (connected to the artistic, intuitive, creative side of our brains) is paradoxical, power that looks like weakness, like non-intervention; it does not make anyone or anything "behave!"

3) Capon sees the Feeding of the 5000, the only one of Christ's miracles recorded in all four Gospels, as a pivotal moment in his ministry.

4) He then goes on the "frame" the Gospel with the Temptation and the Ascension, both of which he sees as demonstrations of the left-handedness of God's reconciling of the world to himself through the death of his Son. In the Temptation, the devil basically takes a RHP approach with Jesus (turn stones into bread, jump off the Temple, etc), and Jesus consistently and steadfastly refuses to. In the Ascension, Christ simply "disappears," leaves, departs, and all without leaving behind anything close to "the kingdom come" or "the Heavenly City."

5) Finally (at least for now), Capon overviews the beginning of Jesus' ministry, the "pre-parabolic" part. Jesus in many ways gets started as a RHP Messiah--healings, miracles, amazing teaching, etc.--but at the same time there is a steady and increasing element of LHP. He seems both to reveal himself and conceal himself.

6)With this whirlwind and incomplete tour of his first 60 pages, we're now ready to look at the primary parable,The Sower.

Brian Emmet said...

Well, nothing like a helpful summary to throttle a conversation!

Joseph Holbrook said...

it was a very good summary Brian ...

I scanned in chapter 5, dealing with the Sower and posted it online.

Capon, Chapter 5 The Sower

I will enjoy this conversation even if it is just you and me ...

Joseph Holbrook said...

people are generally reluctant to comment on something they have not read. Lets give everyone a little time to go to the link and read the chapter ... in the meanwhile, perhaps we can formulate a discussion of the parable of the sower that draws from the scriptures directly, and we can allow Capon to speak to it in the discussion. did that make sense?

Brian Emmet said...

Yes, makes sense and with you. OK, everybody, follow the link to Chpater 5, give it a read, and hurry back!

Brian Emmet said...

If it's not jumping ahead too much, here's where I think Capon summarizes where he's going:

" ... the Sower is the Father, not Jesus. What Jesus turns out to be--since he is the Word--is the seed sown. But note in turn what that means. It means that on the plain terms of the parable, Jesus has already, quite literally, been sown everywhere in the world--and quite without a single bit of earthly cooperation or even consent. But can you tell me that Christians in general have ever acted for long as if that were the case? Have we not acted instead as if the Word wasn't anywhere until we got there with him? Haven't we conducted far too many missions on the assumption that we were "bringing Jesus" to the heathen, when in fact all we had to bring was the Good News of what the Word--who was already there--had done for them? Haven't we, in short, ended up just as he said we would as a result of his explanation of the Sower? We see and hear and still don't catch on" (69).

Comments? Is this obvious to us, or does it raise some hackles?

Vicar of Vincennes said...

don't know that I will have any comments but I have ordered the book from amazon. but what I can derive from all your comments; I like the way Capon puts the whole emphasis of Kingdom living on th e redemptive work of Jesus and not on religion's emphasis on keeping the rules.

Brian Emmet said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joseph Holbrook said...

welcome Vicar! Brian, the vicar is a friend of Steve Humble's who is a pastor in Vincennes Indiana.

The point Capon is making from the quote you offer Brian, is something that some of the early church fathers believed. Jesus was the "seed of the logos" and had been sown in the world. For example, Plato had the "seed of the logos" ... alhough perhaps not in a fully developed form. I can't remember if this was Justin Martyr or Origen. I'll try to track it down.

So there seems to be some historical, patristic foundation for what Capon appears to be saying here. I think of the scipture in Colossians that says all of creation holds together in him ... I find this to be very encouraging and uplifting to my faith.

Brian Emmet said...

If Jesus is Lord, then he is Lord everywhere, all the time--there is no place or time where he is not Lord. This fairly standard confession seems to dovetail with Capon, or Capon with it, but it can still be jarring the way Capon spells out some of the potential implications and applications--we are, rightly, I think--nervous about "universlism", and Capon at times can be a bit coy on the subject... but he also does tend to counterbalance thse tendencies. Hmm, sounds pretty healthy, eh?

Joseph Holbrook said...

I wonder how much of it is our own tradition of Evangelical pietism or Arminianism? Drawing a line from the early church fathers to the Reformers tends to make me think that some of our 20th century evangelicalism is a distortion of the historic gospel

I also wonder if everyone is enjoying listening on our two-way conversation? (lol).

John M. said...

Joseph, how are you seeing Arminianism in this equation? You've mentioned it a couple times in a general way without spelling out what you mean. The little bit of reading I've done of the early Fathers leads me to believe that they were "Arminian" in many aspects -- obviously not in a classical sense, since Arminius was a contemporary of the Reformers -- but in the way they viewed and intrepreted the scriptures. Isn't a universal atonement, which I understand Capon to embrace (based on your all's comments), more "Arminian" than "Reformed"(as in "Calvinist")? Just trying to clarify, so I understand what you're saying.

Joseph Holbrook said...

perhaps I am using Arminianism incorrectly here. I was contrasting Capon's view of the atonement, which is a unlimited and is rather independent of our responses, to a typical evangelical view of the value of the atonement only being effective for those who make a choice of some kind; a choice to believe, repent, follow, join the church, confess, take communion, etc.

Classical Calvinists believe that the salvific effects of the atonement are independent of the response or effort of the elect. However, for most Calvinists, the atonement is limited to the predestined elect. Capon seems to be a Calvinist who believes in unlimited atonement.

anyone else besides Brian, John or me have any thoughts? questions? has anyone ordered the book? I am reading it for the 2nd time, something I rarely do.

Brian Emmet said...

Yes, Joseph, that's my reading, too: unlimited atonement. Capon sees everyone as already "in", and the church's witness is simply telling them that Good News. For example, he reads "there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ" as applying to everyone right now, because everyone has been placed in Christ by God through Christ. I don't think Capon is all that far off how several RC theologians (among others)are thinking these days: no one is saved apart from the work of Christ, but it is possible that some will "be in heaven" (= ultimately saved) apart from necessarily knowing/understanding the name of Jesus.

What Capon, at least to my mind, leaves unclear is how a person "gets in on" Christ and his saving work. It's not clear how C understands the call to discipleship...then again, that may not be his subject here. But I have read enough Capon to still feel fuzzy about what I see as his fuzziness, but maybe that's just my fuzziness.

Vicar of Vincennes said...

Thanks Joseph for posting chapter 5. I like what I read but some of that could be attributed to the fact that I find 'jump thru the hoops, status quo christianity' insane. And yes I agree with you Brian, that many today really believe that if they don't sow the Word, then it doesn't get sown.

Joseph Holbrook said...

thanks Vicar, good comments. I think many people are disatisfied with what you described as jump-through-the-hoop Christianity. Reminds me of a Bob Dylan, ♫The times they are a changin"♫.

Problem is: no one knows in what direction God is moving to change the church and culture. It is far more complex than any individual can get his/her mind around and there are always unintended consequences.

I posted the chapter on the Sower and the Seed by Capon on a new conversation thread above. To read it, click on "fullscreen"

John M. said...

I liked what I read. Thanks, Joseph, for sending it to me, since I was unable to access it on my computer from the posted link. There are so many strands that could get picked up out of all that Capon says...

But I want to comment further on the idea of the scope of the atonement and God's sovereignty. These are musings that are not "concrete" theology, but becoming more firm in my thinking as I let them "steep".

I'll be as succinct as I can: If Jesus truely is the Lord, Creator, and Sustainer of the Universe, the Eternal Father embodied, then how can we limit the scope of His atonement -- unless He does, of course. But that, I think is where Calvanism goes astray. I can't see a "limited" atonement in the scriptures. "All" means "all", unnless we redefine it to mean only all of the elect, not all people. God's heart desire is stated numerous times in the scripture that "all" should come to repentance, and that "none" should perish. This is not greasy or wishy washy, it is powerful. If the atonement Jesus provided through His Passion means anything, it seems that it is all powerful, all encompassing
-- completely, not partially conquering sin and death.

The above is all fine and good for Arminians, but Calvanists, believing that only the elect will be saved, have to limit the atonement in their theology, if they are to maintain their understanding of the absolute sovereignty of God. The delimma created for Arminians, who believe that all have the potential to be saved, but that only those who hear and believe will be saved, are then left with a weakened understanding of the sovereignty of God and the absolute and total nature of Christ's atonement.

Calvanism recognized that there is nothing we can do in ourselves to be saved -- we are totally depraved -- only God, through Christ can save us. They also believe that God chooses who will be saved. Consequently, if they don't limit the atonement, they have to be universalists (in my thinking).

Armenianism, in it's emphasis on free will and choice, seems to put a lot of onus back on humans. As in, "if we don't evangelize and pray, people will miss out on God's salvation", and "if we don't accept a certain set of beliefs and pray a certian prayer (and some would say, live a certain way after doing that)", then we will not be saved. Calvanists say, that that is salvation by works, not soely by grace.

Perhaps Romans 5:16 gets it right, "Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of rightousness leads to justification and life for all men."

All "died" in Adam. No orthodox Christian doctrine denies that in Adam we all [the entire human race] died and became subject to sin. Why, I wonder, do we immediately begin nuancing the "all" when it relates to all being made alive in the second Adam?

To sum up: Perhaps God is a "Calvinist" (sorry Lord, forgive me!), but he believes not only in absolute sovereignty and total depravity, but he also is "Armenian" (sorry again!), in that he believes in an absolute and universal atonement?

Brian, on the subject of discipleship and lifestyle, does that have to do with salvation or does that have to do with fruitfulness; quality of life; ability to exhibit God's nature, character and Kingdom; and subsuquently with our degree of reward in heaven, more so than with actually having our sins atoned for. It seems that we proclaim salvation by grace through faith plus nothing, but then we immediately move over to, "but if you're really saved, then you'll show it by living like this..."

Joseph Holbrook said...

Good coherent thoughts John. I especially like the reference to Romans 5:16. I was also thinking about a passage in Romans 8, “for all of creation is groaning, awaiting the revealing of the Sons of God.” There is another passage somewhere in the Pauline epistles (perhaps Corinthians) that speaks of the “restoration of all things.”

I like the fact that Capon’s view removes a good deal of the onus for salvation from human effort and places it squarely onto the finished work of Christ, in harmony with Calvinism. I also like that his view opens up the possibility of the ultimate salvation and restoration of “all things” (and all people?), in congruence with Arminianism.

Finally, I’m not sure I agree with the Calvinist idea of “total depravity.” I do believe in original sin, but I lean more to a Catholic neo-thomist view of natural law that leaves some room for God’s image in humanity and natural grace to enable men and women to grope their way toward God through the use of reason (and I would add intuition). Several articles written from a Catholic perspective have criticized Calvin’s view of total depravity as excessively pessimistic about humanity.

By-the-way, I posted the chapter on the Seed and the Sower on a new thread with no comment. Brian, if you want to reorient or refine our conversation, you can do it with the first comment on that thread.

John M. said...

Brian, if you do that, just let us know that you started a new thread. I just keep the current thread open and refresh it, causing me at times to miss the new thread since I don't go all the way back to the homepage when I refresh the link. Don't know if I'm the only one or not.

Joseph, I used the term "total depravity" for the sake of argument, but, as I think you know, I embrace the same idea you do (it's also found in EO), that we retain the image of God, albiet broken and twisted by sin. And, I would agree that although we can't save ourselves, we can have a desire for salvation and truth that can lead us to as Shaeffer would say true Truth i.e. God/Jesus. I think God honors one's heart and whether an individual is moving toward or away from Him, when it comes to revealing more of himself and his truth to a person.

Brian Emmet said...

I raised the question of discipleship because it seems that there has to be some congruence between the Good News and the good life; after all, if faith without works is dead, I think Capon's approach can lead to a less-than-fully-fruitful life. He has this in common with Calvinism, I think: since the emphasis falls entirely on God ("negatively" perhaps in Calvin, "positively" in Capon) that seems to me to easily vitiate any sense of ur participation. But let's keep with Capon's developing argument.

Calvin's "total depravity" is often misunderstood to mean that every single aspect of human life is depraved, that we are always and in every way as bad as we possibly can be. I think "total depravity" refers to the efficacy of our efforts to gain salvation through our efforts. While our most enduring works of art, or scientific advances, don't "help" God's saving of us, they nevertheless can have a real (though limited) value. I do think it's healthy for us to have a really pessimistic view of our manifold self-saving tendencies.

John M. said...

Brian, that's a good nuance of total depravity, and your last statement about our "self-saving tendencies" is well-taken.

I agree with you that Capon's approach to the atonement can yield less-than-fruitful lives, and that a life as a disciplined follower of Jesus will have positive qualities that less committed lives might not have (seems, though, that in actual life, it is sometimes true and sometimes not; we all know people who are very committed and very messed up). And I think that when it comes to heavenly rewards and possible even eternal fuitfulness the former is "better".

But that's not really the discussion is it? What we're discussing is whether or not Jesus' atonement extends to everyone or just a few "committed ones". And if you take the latter approach, just how committed do you have to be to make the grade?

I'm thinking right now of the paralble of the laborers -- they all got the same wage (for a full day's labor) whether they started work early, mid-morning, mid-day, afternoon, or a few minutes before quitting time... It can be interpreted, as most prables, a number of different ways, but is there some obvious meaning that applies to our conversation...? Not sure. What do you all (including that huge multitude of lurkers out there) think?

Joseph Holbrook said...

I have to be honest (hopefully not cynical) and say that I have not been too impressed with the "fruitfulness" or wholeness of lives that have resulted from a heavy emphasis on the kingdom or on personal conversion. I honestly don't think that some kind of insecurity about the afterlife is going to motivate people to higher levels of spirituality or holiness. What motivates people to seek to please God is the revelation of the love and grace of God, not the threat of eternal damnation.

The important thing is what is a truely biblical view of atonement and resurrection, not the utilitarian aspect of it in human motivation.

Brian Emmet said...

OK, let's jump "up" to the next post: chapter 5 from Capon's
"The Parables of the Kingdom." You do not have to try to read it in the format you see--look at the bottom of the window for the button the will display the contents as normal-looking text.

Brian Emmet said...

Oops--not the bottom of the window, at the top: "Full Screen". Much easier!