Lawrence Helm - Poetry

Thiselton in his NEW HORIZONS IN HERMENEUTICS refers to certain theories which proposed that Old Testament Jews believed that language had exceptional power. Thus Isaac couldn't take back his blessing of Jacob because the blessing was already loosed -- much like a guided missile with a timer in it. After it was gone it could never be retrieved.

But Thiselton says the real reason the blessing couldn't be taken back was because no provision had ever been made to do such a thing. It would be like taking back a baptism.

The LPs (Logical Positivists) seem to have taken language in a direction that would have pleased Hume: Hume believed that nothing that could not be demonstrated in a laboratory could exist. The LPs believed that nothing that could not be verbalized could exist.

I have been thinking about Jesus' parabolic language. I do not believe it should be invested with "magical" power. Nevertheless, the parables were formulated by Jesus for our direction, and the operation involves our being (as are the parables) invested with power by the Holy Spirit.

The LPs would insist on demythologizing the parables. They would want to reduce them to bite size and argue that they are no more remarkable than the language of Lao Tzu or Buddha. . . or even Shakespeare.

In my opinion good poetry participates in the methodology used by Jesus. I would further say (believing what I do about Jesus) that the methodology (language used as a device to raise our consciousness and even to raise it to an appreciation of, or involvement in, the Spiritual Nature of Jesus) was created by Jesus. And inasmuch as language has this potential, it is legitimate for a poet to use language in a similar manner (whether or not he is consciously giving credit to Jesus).

Therefore (assuming I am right), language that is especially prosaic, involving nothing beyond the literal, does not attain to the potential heretofore described, and in my opinion, only language that does attain to this potential is worthy of being called poetry.

What so often puts itself forward as Christian poetry does not raise our consciousness beyond its literalness but instead, by evoking familiar Christian sentiments, hopes to elicit our sympathy by demanding our loyalty. If the language of the poem is orthodox, surely we will agree with it, surely we will appreciate its sentiment, and (the poet hopes) surely we will conclude that it is a good poem. I believe that this sort of Christian verse is subsumed within common literal Christian expressions. Thus, they obtain whatever value they possess by appealing to commonly understood literal expressions. Certainly this appeal has value in sermons, Sunday school lessons & the exhortation that goes on amongst Christians, but in what sense does it go beyond a sermon, Sunday school lesson or exhortation to become a poem? This is a question I ask myself when I write. If what I want to say can be perfectly well said in prose, then I have no business in poetry. On the other hand, if I have the tools and can see that something I want to say cannot be said in prose but only in something BEYOND prose, then I might write poetry. . .

Lawrence