Poetic Theology
i love you, gentlest of Ways,
who ripened us as we wrestled with you.
you, the great homesickness we could never shake off,
you, the forest that always surrounded us,
you, the song we sang in every silence,
you dark net threading through us,
on the day you made us you created yourself,
and we grew sturdy in your sunlight…
let your hand rest on the rim of heaven now and mutely bear the darkness we bring over you.
~Rainer Maire Rilke
The Great Homesickness
In his collection of poetry, “Book of Hours” Marie Rainer Rilke profoundly describes God as “the great homesickness we can never shake off” This reflects the famous word of Augustine, who in the first chapter of Confessions, after writing extensively on the implausibility of knowing an infinite God beautifully proclaims “our restless heart cannot find rest till they rest in you” This is the current of the divine. Poetry for century has housed the deep pulling of the heart toward God. Wrapped up in this tug comes a great mystery, like a word stuck on tip of the tongue.
There are many ways to deal with the unsettling tension of seeking understanding of a God who is outside of comprehension. For the last four to five hundred years the Western mind has attempted to cure this tension through the project of systematic theology. The medium which is systematics is a medium that is biased toward division at worst and unity as uniformity as best. Neither of these biases should be incredibly appealing to the follower of a Triune God. Division within and outside the church runs rampant, and systematics has done nothing to help solve this, instead it has created more and more niche Christian cultures. It is for the sake of unity, true unity that can be found in a diverse body, that I propose a new way of thinking of theology, not as a system, but as poetry.
Systematics' Western Warts
Systematics is by no stretch of the imagination an original invention of western theologians. Instead, systematics is a borrowed form of western philosophical thought. Like all philosophies western philosophy has attempted to explain and define. The main way that it has attempted to do this over the last several hundred years is through abstracted, universal, principles, rooted in a Platonic view of forms.
If modernity has taught us anything it is that truth is not so malleable to be able to fit into sentences. Western Mathematicians have told us that the circumference of a circle is pi*d. In creating this equation they have taken there defined circleness of a shape and abstracted it into this universal equation that can be plugged in anywhere throughout time and space (pi*d). Nifty right? However how does an simple equation get to gift circleness to the whole of reality? What if another place or time say that a circle is 2pi*d? Which one is truly a circle? Does the difference make pi*d lose any of its circleness? And even more what are we to say of the nature of this thing we call pi, which is a number that goes on forever. How can one convince of a number that never ends? Were number not created in order to define finite things? Does giving the definition of infinite really give us any definition at all? And if this number is truly infinite and we only work with a truncated version of it in reality who is to say then that circleness is really so concrete? And this is saying nothing of the way that measurement and distance is reliant on the very push, spin, and gravity that we experience on this particular planet in this particular time. While abstracted universal propositions and equations may work well in ivory towers, it is clear that when beginning to translate them into the actually fabric of our reality, that they crumble. Truths are not as abstracted as the modern mind likes to think. For more on the philosophy behind these thoughts, check on Platos view of the forms.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-metaphysics/#3
https://philosophynow.org/issues/90/Plato_A_Theory_of_Forms
Our modern imagination than is obsessed with the scientific method. Everything is observed, tested, and then explained in true or false propositions. The propositions are then abstracted and remain true over time and space, if they do not, how can they be considered true? The circumference of a circle is and always will be pi*d. The force of gravity is always pushing us downward. Truth for the modern mind is squished into systems of equations and proportions. This creates a kind of order out of the great homesickness. Its within these systems we find meaning, and more importantly for the Western mind, we find safety.
Systematics & a Messy World
The issue however is that these systems are not immune to the entropy that plagues the fabric of our reality. In Kevin Hart’s Article “Systematics In What Sense” Hart acknowledges that traditional systematic theology overlooks the often “openendness” and “contextual” nature of reality. Both of these characters are fundamental attributes of living in the already but not yet. The apostle Paul tells us that reality is still groaning for its completion (Romans 8:23). The incarnation of Yeshua the Nazarite, the God/man with a belly button who came to a particular place, at a particular time, to a particular people speaks to the importance of contextualization. If these two characteristics of reality are intrinsic to our reality, but do not inhabit well within systems than the question should arise “Should the means in which we are trying to define our reality really be based on a model whose very nature rubs against the nature of reality in which we are attempting to define?” Before we attempt to answer this question, let us turn our attention to the nature of systems and their relationship with truth.
Logical systems have been built upon both propositions and equations not only for their universality but also for their convenience. Systems help take complex information and put them in organized propositions that can be understood universally. Hart states that for systems to work well they must “be able to say everything and not leave any point unconsidered”. This gives us finite beings the sense of closure that our restless hearts so desires, however it is in the same, cheap way that the happily ever after fairy tale does. But this closeness somehow comes at odds with the seemingly unsystematic reality we live in. Not all tyrants get slain, not every hero survives, and not every guy gets the girl.
And still the modern mind has pushed western theological thinking into this vein for the last couple centuries, producing the ever present baby of Systematic Theology. Within this way of doing theology, the theologian creates a system in which he lays out a series of propositions about the nature of God, humanity, and the reality in which both exist. In most systems bedrock propositions are made and then subsequently built off of.
Think of two popular systems of theology; Calvinism and Arminianism. Both systems set out in an attempt to define the complex issue of suffering and an all loving God. Calvinism bases its entire system on the proposition that “God is sovereign” and builds the rest of its propositions with statements that can adhere. Arminianism builds its system of thought of the proposition of “Humans have free agency” and again builds its entire system off of the thought. Both systems are in some ways biblical as both base there core propositions off of biblical propositions, or at the very least contextual understandings of biblical propositions. And yet both are also entirely unbiblical as they attempt to build entire ways of understanding reality through reductionism. In order to create a coherent system they must reject other biblical propositions or somehow explain them away. And so systems working both as abstracted universals and in closed controllable realities do not mesh with the fabric of the unsystematized world we live in.
While systematics may not be ideal, the next question that arises is are they damaging? Do systems merely miss the mark of fully encapsulating reality, or does the actually medium carry its own messaging that is damaging to the ethos of what it means to be Christian? Red flags should arise when one begins to understand that the same philosophical system that systematics is built upon has also been used to establish racism, colonization, and the Jewish Holocaust. For more on that read Willie James Jennings The Christian Imagination.
To truly evaluate the ethos of systematics however an ethos must first be established, which itself is done mostly through systematics. Instead here an umbrella ethos will be established by studying the movement of the narrative of scripture which may in and of itself begin to move us through modernity and its child systematics.
The Pulse Of A Living Narrative
Mirsolv Volf’s masterpiece Exclusion & Embrace dissects the narrative of Scripture as a story of communion and separation. Within this narrative humans willingly reject a God who willingly chooses to continue to embrace his people. This is climaxed at the cross in which the rejected God/man Jesus willingly pays the penalty for that we deserve in order to welcome us back into communion with him. This then situates the main pulse of the narrative that we find ourselves with as one where the excluded (sinners or everyone) are continually being included back into a place that they continue to willingly reject in and because so, do not deserve.
Nothing here should be controversial. However if the main thrust of the book that we attempt to explain is one where those who are far off are welcomed in as they are, we must ask ourselves if the medium of systems accomplishes this well.
Systematics and Inclusion
Systems it seem have an inclusionary effect. The Calvinist for instance is included into a circle of Calvinist because of his/her acceptance of the system. However this inclusion is predicated on adherence to the system. That is to say that for inclusion with systems to occur, one must first accept the system and then one might be included within the circle of adherents. As already established for a system to be adhered to the whole and entirety of the system must be accepted, for a system will crumble if one or more of its parts are dismissed. This then required for those excluded from a system to be completely abstracted from there sense of reality (unless of course they have the privilege of living in a reality that closely adhere to the system in which they are converting to.) before they can be included fully. This notion reeks of the kind of legalism that first century Jewish believers put upon gentile believers, a notion that Paul fights radically against as knowing that it goes against the thrust of narrative of inclusion that we live in.
If then the form of abstracted propositions, borrowed from the modern mind, built into coherent systems, is in and of itself a medium that is biased against the motion of the narrative of scripture and the fabric of our incoherent reality, than a new, or reformed medium needs shaping. And so we now turn our attention to a new way of thinking about theology. Instead of Systematic Theology built on propositions I suggest that we move our way into thinking of Poetic Theology, in which theology is done as metaphor. In this way a new kind of system is built, one that is inherently unsystematic and does not play by the same rules that is forced on it by the ideals of Western Systems.
The Meaning in the Metaphor
Webster’s dictionary describes metaphor as “a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them.” I would first like to dissect the word literally and the implications that brings for the relationship between metaphor and truth.
In a reductionistic society substances must be reduced to their purest, most literal, form. This kind of thinking has lead to the rejection of the metaphoric as a valid and convenient way of expressing truth. And so the proposition takes center stage. Truth is then the most true when put in literal terms. The proposition that the today the sky is blue is a well distilled proposition. To speak in a way such as, Today the sky is the color of the waters of the ocean has multiple problems for the modern mind.
First of all it is not succinct. The sentence itself houses twice as many words. Second, it requires more interpretation, giving the sender less control. What if the person in whom I express this statement has grown up in a town where the only water source is muddy. They could perhaps believe that I was trying to express that the sky is black, when I am really trying to say it is blue.
And so the former is chosen instead of the later. However, with the gain of control, comes both a loss of depth and more importantly a requirement for an acceptance of a preconceived reality. The literal proposition today the sky is blue gives the reader little to no information as there are hundreds and thousands of shades of blue. While one may go further and try to expound upon the type of blue such as today the sky is light blue already we begin to delve, though lightly into the realm of metaphor, as the substance of light begins to inform the substance of blue.
Metaphor also grounds truth within experience, a key aspect of our interaction with reality. To say today the sky is blue and have it expresses well means that one must have already come with an already agreed upon definition of what is blue. Otherwise that which is expressed is missed.
Metaphor then a total departure from the universal propositions of systematics. While universal propositions force one to adhere to a particular reality, metaphor celebrates the diversity of experience. It is within different experiences that metaphor increases in its complexities and beauty. This is why you can go back to a poem, or a novel, years later and find it speaking to you in new ways and profound ways. At times this newness may be so profound that you exclaim "How did I never see it this way before?" Your experience has shaped your understanding. It seems to me that this is also a common experience for our understanding and reading of the Bible.
Metaphor could of course fall trap to that, to properly express the color of the sky both parties would need to agree upon the normalization of the color of the ocean. If to one the ocean has always been a muddy brown and the other a crystal blue, what is being expressed will not be received. However, let us examine the way in which these two miscommunications are solved and the ethic of both process.
In the first example for the miscommunicated to be right, one must reject one's own way of thinking (or experience of reality) and conceded to the other system. That is to say that to understand what the color of the sky is, I must accept the preconceived notion, even if for instance, of what blue is to the other, and then adhere to the ideation of blue. Either that or a third conception of this blue can be formed. That is to say both parties could decided to come up with an entirely new way of thinking about what this color blue is, humbly reject there old systems, and come together to create a new one. The problem is, however, only solved in there own relationship, for now if others want to join they must ditch their own systems and join into this newly created one, or the three will have to scrap all there opposing systems and create a new one. As should be obvious, this way of operating would be much to labour for our finite humanity to handle.
What about in the second example. How does a miscommunication of a metaphor get resolved. It is entirely possible to treat the situation the same as correcting propositional miscommunication. One could argue that the other has a totally wrong conception of the ocean, that there’s is correct, and that the other must adhere to their understanding of the ocean. This of course clears up the miscommunication, but does a violence to the other by dismissing their experience as relevant and worthy of attention.
There is however another way forward that this form of communication allows, one of symbiotic growth. This would be to accept that neither understandings are true or false but that both understanding actually help refine the other. The first step requires for one (or both) parties to enter into (incarnate) the reality of the other. The blue ocean communicator enters into the reality of the black ocean receiver to understand through his eyes what has been misunderstood. From this position the communicator become the student of the receiver. He learns as much, if not more than he teaches. In entering in the communicator can give value and dignity to the reality in which the receiver has been steeped in. He can realize himself the wrong in him thinking the the ocean is only a monolithic color. Upon this realization why the miscommunication has occurred the communicator has a few sets of choices.
Though he has given value to the receiver he can still choose to dismiss the receivers understanding as primitive or lacking and force upon his own metaphor as the best. Second he can invite the receiver into his own reality, and in vulnerability attempt to be understood as to what was trying to be expressed. Or thirdly, the communicator can trek deeper, more fully incarnating himself, into the context of the receiver to find a metaphor which will communicate clearly his intended message and choose to give up his own way of thinking for the other. Though not foolproof, poetic theology presents the opportunity of a theology ethic of humility and inclusion, that propositional systems do not.
While issues of the color of the sky might seem trivial, what about when we turn our attention to theology. Let us turn our attention to the propositional theological statement that God is Father. This designation is one that God gives himself throughout all of scripture, and is highlight most in the person Jesus, who often refers to his Heavenly Father.
God As Father
First let us examine what interpreting and externalizing this truth claim would like with from the idealistic prepositional framework of systematic theology. Though, as we have already explored, not theology is done without context, we will act is if we are coming to the concept of father with a fresh set of eyes. To build a system off this proposition one would examine what the substance of this fatherness that God is entering into.
A quick proposition that could be made off this system is that God is male, for ancient fatherness would have always come with maleness (as it continues to today). That along with the fact that the God of Israel is almost exclusively described with the pronouns seems to cement this proposition. For this system to hold up then all attributions which situate God as woman (Matthew 23:37; Luke 13:34, Isa. 42:14, Isa. 66:13, Isa. 49:15) must be dismissed as not literal.
A second proposition that could easily be made is that God has a child, or children. This seems logically. Without a child how can one ontologically be a Father. This concept would then have to somehow work its way around the Oneness of the trinity, and would inherently been drawn to expressing its threeness, for one being cannot be a father.
Furthermore a contextual study of scripture could enlighten someone to a third proposition. Since fathers in Jewish cultures were the heads of the family one could propose that God is the head of his child(ren). This would then lead the interpreter toward passages of God’s kingship, his rule, and his domination, and he would somehow have to explain his humiliation, descension, and servanthood in light of these.
Before externalization has even happened attempting build a coherent system of propositions causes the favoring of certain passages over another. A propositional system cannot exist having two conflicting propositions. God can’t be both male and female, One and Three (no equation can explain that) and all powerful, yet subservient. Either the system will have to redefine these concepts or will have to minimize one of them, both will overlook parts of the narrative.
The violence to the narrative only becomes stronger as externalization occurs. What happens when the communicator enters into a matriarchal culture, or to a culture that desires to give more of a voice and position to women. The language could be changed to match the culture, but that would be twisting the truth right? Because God is not mother. God is Father. So to keep control of the interpretation of the system and to keep the system intact, the communicator will first require the receiver to accept the supremacy of the cultural context in which they have come to the interpretation forcing them to neglect their own context and what it could bring to the table. Not only does this do violence to the very ethic of inclusion, it totally supersedes the goal of accepting the narrative with the need to accept a particular contextual reality that has been abstracted.
The divide deepens as both sides become more and more attached to their own systems. Years, sometimes entire lives, are spent attempting to rid systems of any cracks and to create them in systems that threaten the stability of those already built. An unwillingness to enter into other realities creates groups of people that stay huddled within circles of people that adhere to the same systems within these groups we are persuaded that unity exists. Colloquially we call these denominations. Yet the kind of unity that Jesus prays for his church does is not a unity that can be explained, for he uses a trinitarian metaphor (the most troubling spot for most systematic theologians) to explain how the church is to be unified. In John Jesus prays these words troubling words.
“I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity.”
This kind of unity does not call for uniformity (Jesus the Son, and God the Father are two separate persons) however it does still call for a oneness (at the same time they are one). The unity in which Jesus is praying here for is unsystematic.
If we instead look at God as Father as metaphor there see what ethic is produced. First off the substance of fatherness is not abstracted from the text. The interpreter comes to each text where God is presented as father to see what it says about God, not to create a universal set of principles to apply to both him and fatherness. So then when the interpreter comes across things that may push against the substance of father, they need not be fearful. For the complexity that is brought about only goes to enrich the metaphor. They are not worried about a predetermined logic but about what's being communicated.
Externalization is also shifted. The poetic theologian is not bound by communicating that God is ontologically a Father, but what they have learned about God through his fatherness. He then can enter into the context in which he is communicating to see how this can be done. By doing this he is undoubtedly learning another dimension, perhaps a profoundly new dimension to this already preconceived notion of fatherness that has enlightened him to the person of God. And in this learning this is undoubtedly there will be a new understanding of God.
While much has, and can be said about the harms of systematics there is much that can and should be held on from the way of thinking. Let us not forgot that the first chapter of the Bible is one where God creates order out of chaos. Even poetry has found itself throughout the ages inside different poetic forms. However what a poetic theology does is creates it metaphor and form out of the culture and no into it.
This poetic imagination than is necessary for both the health of the church as it interacts within itself and as it acts within the broader world. True unity as Christ describes cannot be found in uniformity, which is the only option that systematics brings. Instead when theological articulation is viewed through the poetic imagination, contextualization and ambiguity, become allies, not enemies to be dismissed. Truths are then able to be situated within the fabric of the reality we live in, and are given space to be shaped and molded by every tribe, tongue, and nation.