Last night, one of my friends must have been listening to the same thunderstorm. I suspect it was a happy distraction from some editorial or other work that had been occupying him earlier, because he posted his defiance against the notion that God can be understood best when he is "systematized." I doubt that he was denying that theology (or specifically systematic theology) has any value. Theology is a part of our desire to fully explore our relationship and creation's relationship with God. "Head" and "heart" are not opposites, but rather different parts of the same wave as it crashes against and attempts to cover the full width of a beach. Theologians explore the relationship we have with the Creator, and with words, metaphors, and systems they illustrate the height, width, and depth of God's love. Later, my friend posted that theologians are engaged in poetry. I think that might be true!
On the other hand, our drive to define and categorize God and godly things also reveals our desire to establish a sense of control over that which we have no control. Sometimes our study of things loses touch with the very things we study. Theology bites into that apple when it objectifies God, forgetting that he is the Living God who loves the theologian. It can create a very sterile and "heartless" view of the God of Creation, listing his parts and functions, but missing the motivating relationship. It would be like studying your crying child, observing how and where she fell down, noticing the skinned knee, and the falling tears, noting all of these significant things, but getting so lost in the observation and study that you forget to lift her, hug her, and tend to her wound with a bandage and soothing words.
A full theology freely confesses and bows to the God of and beyond theologies. Without that humility, in the face of a single thunderstorm, a systematized god can seem a bit lifeless. I responded to his post, "What? If I build a perfectly measured temple and fill it with godly things, do you mean to say I can't contain, study, and understand God within it? How will we ever understand him out in the wild?"
I'll admit to you that I deleted my question: I meant to support him, but it came across as arrogant and awkward in the midst of others' responses; it had a contextual problem.
In any case, the exchange reminded me of a few things. First, that God is best "understood" like any other living being: in relationship! Second, that God is not contained by our temples; he cannot be completely categorized or fully understood, and our theologies need to include and revel in this humility.
Third, I was reminded of a quote that I have always loved, but until now haven't shared: "In God's wilderness lies the hope of the world – the great fresh, unblighted, unredeemed wilderness." That quote from John Muir was on a coffee cup that I once had and lost. (I miss that cup.)
Some accused John Muir of nature worship. Druidism over-states Muir's appreciation for the cathedral which pointed him to the God who cannot be fully described... except perhaps by poetry and metaphor. Honestly, plants and creation often seem to obey and worship God more readily and emphatically than we do!
“A few minutes ago every tree was excited, bowing to the roaring storm, waving, swirling, tossing their branches in glorious enthusiasm like worship. But though to the outer ear these trees are now silent, their songs never cease. Every hidden cell is throbbing with music and life, every fiber thrilling like harp strings, while incense is ever flowing from the balsam bells and leaves. No wonder the hills and groves were God's first temples, and the more they are cut down and hewn into cathedrals and churches, the farther off and dimmer seems the Lord himself.”
