Theopoetic As Way Forward

The Theopoetic as Way Forward.

By Jason Derr

Chaplaincy Assistant – LAMM(Lutheran/Anglican Mountaintop Ministry) – SFU

THE CHURCH AS S/HE IS LIVED

The unavoidable truth is that the church as we know it is dying. Wherever I travel in the church I hear grumbling about shrinking attendance, the increasing isolation of the church from the post-modern generation and the lack of relevance of faith to the world. Add to that the arguments, bitter disputes and controversy’s which cut straight to our heart of what it means to be ‘church’ in today’s world and our dilemma starts to become clear.

As a person involved in ministry – Chaplaincy Assistant at Simon Fraser University – I feel like I’m expected to defend the church, and as a theological student and theologian I feel as if I am expected to do border patrols around the church insisting on some sort of ‘true Lutheran’ doctrine. Such a view leaves me feeling as if my only obligation – as a Christian and Lutheran – is toward preserving a certain ideal of church that is located in certain faith contexts.

I cannot in good faith do either of these. If the church is dying – or in my preferred language, transforming – there is little we can do to stop it. Both liberal and conservative members of the church (brothers and sisters all, lest we forget) falsely believe a redirection in theology will bring new members to us in droves. And as a member of the post-modern generation I am also post-Lutheran. My identity is rooted in Lutheran liturgical language, Eucharistic imagery and the life of the church. But I am also a post-modern Christian, with little interest in denomination divides, doctrinal wars and the latest church fads. I am much more interested in a faith that speaks to the human condition as s/he is lived today. To use the words of Intregal Philosopher Ken Wilber, as a post-Lutheran I seek to ‘include and transcend’ my Lutheran roots.

The current controversy of the church – and this one will fade eventually to make room for the next – is the conversation around homosexuality, the bible and the life of the church. Many times in this conversation I hear much complaint around the divide between pulpit and pew. Again and again I hear that the theologically minded of the pulpit and the pew which has had less time to peruse such interests usually have a gap in thinking between the two.

In another phrase; theology has become a task separate from the life-work of the community. The crime of this is that theology is, theoretically, created for the community. That there is a gap in theological literacy between pulpit and pew speaks to a crime of ineffecitude on the part of theology. Can theology be seen as a responsibility of the community?

THE THEOPOETIC

And it is here that the problem lies. My own work focuses on the role of the Theopoetic as theological method. Dr. Scott Holland defines the Theopoetic as:

Good theology is a kind of transgression, a kind of excess, a kind of gift. It is not a smooth systematics, a dogmatics, or a metaphysics; as a theopoetics it is a kind of writing. It is a kind of writing that invites more writing. Its narratives lead to other narratives, its metaphors encourages new metaphors, its confessions more confessions...

-Scott Holland

from Theology Is a Kind of Writing

If we use the Theopoetic to create a conversation bridge between the theological and the poetic then we can come to a very simple but sincere conclusion. Theology shares the same problem of being that poetry does. Poet/Essayist/Philosopher/Farmer Wendell Berry names the failure of poetry as its insistence on specialization. Poetry has become an ‘art for arts sake’ task by people working on an MFA in poetry or who have an MFA in poetry writing for each other. It is a self-generating market. The idea that poetry has an obligation, responsibility and role in the culture has been lost to us.

We can likewise see the implications for theology as it regards the pulpit/pew divide. Those who have or work on an MA, M.div or PhD in theology tend to work and write in a virtual bubble where there work is only consumed by others who have or are working toward similar degrees. Upon graduation from seminary the theologically educated pastor or priest finds his ability to speak from his theological convictions limited due to the preference of the congregation or the fear of being labeled a heretic.

The Theopoetic, as I have defined it above, insists on a sort of post-academic theology. To return to the words of Ken Wilber the post-academic is not an abandonment of the academic – a fool-hearty task if their ever was one – but instead asks that theology work inside the world of the congregation, sitting in position between pulpit and pew and thus enabling the relevance of the church.

When poetry becomes ‘art for arts sake’ and stops insisting that the words, ideas and language by which we name the world have relevance then we have retreated into a sort of artistic abandonment of the world. Likewise if we allow a divide between pulpit and pew, if we insist on ‘theology for theologies sake’ or as a purely academic exercise divorced from the church’s life then we have insisted that the church has no relevance for our age.

If the church grows or shrinks is not the issue before us. The church, as churches always have through time, will change to better minister and speak to its cultural and social location. I am content that new ways of being church and being Lutheran will emerge. The task before us is to envision a church that is relevant so that transformation is a healthy one for the world (and not just the church).

The church – like poetry and theology – has become in many ways a task for and of itself. The longer we insist on church as a separate realm of being from the rest of life – a Sunday morning lifechoice instead of a 24/7 lifestyle – the more it will become segregated from the life of the world.

With that in mind we can say that if the church must turn to a Theopoetic as a way forward, as a way of allowing the theological conversation to exist as a task of the whole community and not as an exclusive few, then we must begin to imagine the church as a Theopoetic in the wider community and culture. The church must envision it’s self as a voice among a multiplicity of voices.

A MULTI-TABLED THEOLOGY

When we speak of theology as being a post-academic pursuit then we by rights are insisting that the community itself function as theologian and has a purpose and voice in the community. To say we include and transcend the academic is to say we work with the insights and revelations of academic fields but add to that our communal insights and artistic endeavors that name our human and spiritual desires that may fall outside of the community .To better clarify what I mean by such a phrase I will turn to the work of Marianne Sawicki.

Sawicki, a Catholic theologian, in her book ‘Seeing the Lord’ makes a passing reference to the idea that theology is a meeting of three tables of theological discourse. Table one would be the academic. Any endeavourer to speak theologically would be amiss if it did not take into consideration the historical and latest conversations of theology, philosophy, sociology and many other fields. The second table would be the voices, concerns, life and reality of the worshipping community. The third table would be the hunger and desires of the poor and the marginalized, those whom the world calls least and Christ calls greatest. We included them as participants in our conversation for we must remember the insights and contributions of those whom are outside the church, who are on occasion trampled by the church and who the church is called to serve.

In this way the community takes on the task of theologian. By applying a multitude of voices from multiple communities we prevent theology from becoming a solitary act. Additionally it recognizes the gifts and contributions of those both inside and outside the community and brings their voices, observations and conversations to bear.

In no way am I trying to indicate that I feel that such a move will rescue the church. As stated previously I have little or no concern about the survival of the church. I am confident that the church will survive, though I also assume that the form it takes will evolve. Nor am I proposing a way in which to negotiate the pulpit-pew divide as it regards the issue of homosexuality.

The multi-tabled theology does not even need to insist on a consensus between the three tables. The works produced in such way can be a joint publication, a midrash, a joint statement, a public forum or a public action. The theopoetic encourages us to view the artistic, the poetic, fiction, vandalism and the internet as primary documentation for theology. In order to avoid the solitary action of the academic theology the task we are discussing here would allow for an multi-platform publication: websites that combine scholarship with video/sound/art/poetry and community discussion, gallery shows and chapbook and zine publishing as well as traditional peer-reviewed academic publishing.

Instead I am proposing a form by which the church can enter into the task of asserting its self as a relevant place of public discourse. A multi-tabled, post-academic, theopoetic theology could provide formats by which the community as theologian can enter into the public conversation. Likewise, theology in such a collaborative model allows for a multiplicity of voices and a flow of conversation between previously segregated disciplines.

Berry’s critique of poetry applies to this as well. When we allow the life of the church to become specialized – worship over here, justice and service over here, and theology in another corner all together – we neuter the church and its voice. The multi-tabled and theopoetic insist on the role of the voice of Spirit in public consciousness. This does not necessarily mean a purely Christian voice, but insists that the multiple voices of spirit come into consideration.