Scott Cairns, “And Why Theology?”: A commentary

fQYSUbVfts-T7odkrFJckdiFeHvab0GWOfzhj7tYdC0uglagsDcWhqdLeY6cPEg44H0j-OqDCZe56jPCQb0I2dLWyZVejaySlZVZpUURVsGDCCj8-wuGJd2oFEn6R3RhBCf1Mz_ma4E1TOrUeoQ2zAxlfev2-hQ35A-rjwHq6UlWBRwZGBdC6TQIKY5WwSj1fGIrYAMEspq7Td5S54Rc2cueLrJi.jpeg
Giant Mountains, Poland. Photograph by Tomasz Rojek, National Geographic Your Shot

As I take up the question “Why bother with theology?” in the opening days of my course on theology, my friend and former student, Joey Jekel, recommended that I consider Scott Cairn’s poem, “And Why Theology?”, in his volume, Idiot Psalms (2014). My commentary will be interspersed between the stanzas of the poem.

AND WHY THEOLOGY?
because the first must be first
—Milosz

The title of the poem asks an apologetic question about why any finite human being should undertake the study of an infinite God while the epigraph, quoted from the 20th century Polish poet Czeslaw Milosz’s poem “Treatise on Theology”, provides an historic answer: “Why theology? Because the first must be first. And first is a notion of truth.” The  first refers to God, who is what Aristotle calls the First Cause and St. John calls “the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end” (Rev. 22:13). The first also refers to theology vis-à-vis other ways of knowing. In medieval Christendom, theology was regarded as “the Queen of the Sciences”a synthesis of all other liberal arts. This view about the primacy of theology has a biblical origin: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction” (Prov. 1:7, ESV).  In secular modernity, theology is either relegated to a science on par with any other, or rejected altogether as a dubious science. Cairn’s poem tries to reclaim the supremacy of the theological enterprise.

And the first, if you don’t mind me saying, is both an uttered
notion of the truth and a provisional, even giddy apprehension 
of its reach. The dayfortunately, a winter’s dayis censed 
with wood smoke, and the wood smoke is remarkably, is richly
spiced with evergreen; you can almost taste the resin.

In the first stanza, the speaker asserts a paradoxical trait of theology: it is a sayable (“an uttered notion of the truth”) and unsayable (“a provisional, even giddy apprehension of its reach”) science. The Western Church has emphasized positive (or kataphatic) theology (God is knowable through the two books of Scripture and Nature), whereas the Eastern Church has emphasized negative (or apophatic) theology (God is unknowable). Both traditions are true. God is knowable, as theologians attest in their “uttered notion of the truth,” otherwise known as the creeds (Apostle’s Creed, Nicene Creed, Athanasian Creed). But God is also unknowable, as monks and mystics attest in their “giddy apprehension of its reach.” The word apprehension means the faculty of understanding through perception on a direct and immediate level, as opposed to ratiocination, which involves logical reasoning. When monks and mystics apprehend God, they are likely to be “giddy” because fathoming the unfathomable God induces vertiginous wonder.

The study of God, this poem suggests, happens on “a winter’s day,” which reminds us that we lack the clear-sightedness of a summer’s day. Wintery weather conceals more than it reveals. As we try to know God, we may experience a synesthesia of the spiritual senses, tasting what we smell (“the wood smoke is remarkably, is richly spiced with evergreen; you can almost taste the resin”). God, according to Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, spreads the fragrance of Christ everywhere; He is the aroma of life diffused in a world undergoing decay and death, akin to the season of winter (2 Cor. 2:14-17).

Or, I can. Who knows what you’ll manage? The day itself 
is shrouded, wrapped, or tucked, say, within a veil of wood smoke
and low cloud, and decidedly gray, but lined as well with intermittent, 
slanted rays of startlingly brilliant, impossibly white light just here,
and over there, and they move a bit, shifting round as high weather
shoves the clouds about. 

The second stanza continues the imagery of a winter’s day, which by now seems comparable to knowing God, who is “shrouded, wrapped, or tucked, say, within a veil of wood smoke and low cloud, and decidedly gray, but lined as well with intermittent, slanted rays of startlingly brilliant, impossibly white light.” Using an ancient emblem, God is the sunthe source of light that can be glimpsed, on occasion, despite the obscuring clouds. Truth shines through mystery. In our present lot as slow pilgrims, we never see the fiery orb of the sun in all of its intensity and brilliance because our eyes would burn. Like Moses, we hide our face from the light of the burning bush (Ex. 3:1-6). Like Peter, James, and John on the Mount of Transfiguration, we fall on our faces when the voice speaks from the bright cloud that overshadows us (Mt. 17:1-13). Only a fool tries to make a tent for the transfigured Christ: we cannot house God in our systems of theology. He is always too grand for any shelter that we erect. All we can do, like John the Baptist, is “bear witness about the Light” (Jn. 1:8), ever mindful that this “startlingly brilliant, impossibly white light” is strained through clouds of unknowing.

Theology is a distinctly rare, a puzzling 
study, given that its practitioners are happiest when the terms
of their discovery fall well short of their projected point; this 
is where they likely glimpse their proof. Rare as well 
is the theologian’s primary stipulation that all that is explicable
is somewhat less than interesting. 

The third stanza is a digression, touching upon the odd features of theology. First, theology finds satisfaction in unsatisfactorily reaching its objective: knowing God. Failure in other sciences is success in theology. Second, theology circumscribes its explanatory power, keenly aware that any explanation of God cannot explain Him away since God is Wholly Other to us. The prophet Isaiah admonishes God’s chosen people, who were prone to domesticate God in their understanding: “‘For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,’ declares the Lord. ‘For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts'” (55:8-9). In short, the task of theology is insanely ambitious because it seeks to know Godwho constitutes what philosophers call “the really real”and embarrassingly modest because the cognitive equipment of fallen human beings can only reach, at best, the orbit of Reality. 

In any case, the day
keeps loping right along, and blurs into the night, which itself
will fairly likely press into another clouded day, et cetera.
The future isn’t written, isn’t fixed, and the proof of that is how
sure we areif modestlythat every moment matters.  

The fourth stanza returns to the winter’s day but focuses on the transition into night and the extended forecast. The night can be interpreted as what one mystic famously called la noche oscura del alma (“dark night of the soul”), where the light is absent, where God seems aloof or silent, where theologians stumble in the dark. The extended forecast assures us that there will never be a cloudless day in knowing God until our final union with Him, as St. Paul says: “We don’t yet see things clearly. We’re squinting in a fog, peering through a mist. But it won’t be long before the weather clears and the sun shines bright! We’ll see it all then, see it all as clearly as God sees us, knowing him directly just as he knows us!” (1 Cor. 13:12, The Message).

Take this one, now. We stand before another day extending like
a scarf of cloud, or wood smoke, or incense reaching past what’s visible. 

And sure, you could as easily rush ahead, abandoning what lies in reach
in favor of what doesn’tbut you don’t, and we here at your side are pleased
to have you with us, supposing that we’ll make the way together. 

The final stanza of the poem carries the sentiment from the last line of the previous stanza. Because “every moment matters” in knowing God, we should be content to receive His self-disclosures to us in this moment rather than reach for tomorrow’s revelations with arms outstretched like Tantalus, grasping, in vain, for water and fruit that will never be ours. Theology is a task that we take up each and every hour in our pilgrimage. Theology is not knowing about God, for even demons have mastered that science (Mark 1:23-24, Jas. 2:19). Theology is knowing God through loving obedience (1 Jn. 5:2-4) and indemonstrable faith (Jn. 20:29), as Richard of Chichester’s prayer memorably says: “O most merciful redeemer, friend and brother, may I know thee more clearly, love thee more dearly, and follow thee more nearly, day by day.”

4 Replies to “Scott Cairns, “And Why Theology?”: A commentary”

  1. 1) Could you further explain this: “The third stanza is a digression, touching upon the odd features of theology. First, theology finds satisfaction in unsatisfactorily reaching its objective: knowing God. Failure in other sciences is success in theology.”

    2) I am currently reading Scott Cairns’ memoir, Short Trip to the Edge: A Pilgrimage to Prayer. He has a section devoted to the topic of Theology, which I thought I would share:

    Theology, as you have already noticed, comes in two broadly popular flavors: the more familiar kataphatic (the theology of attributes, the via positive) and the somewhat less familiar apophatic (the theology of negation, the via negativa). At its intermittent best, the West has understood the two approaches as equal and largely complementary, each approach balancing the other. In the Western model, for instance, one might say—kataphatically—that God is King, which would reveal something of God’s relation to us; but one would hasten to—apophatically—balance that assertion by insisting God is not King in the way a man would be king. This hedging of the term would eventually yield to an understanding that God is, finally, in no way comparable to a king, or to anything else—being God and all, and inexhaustible.

    In Eastern Orthodox Christendom, the apophatic is understood as the higher approach outright, a fuller, more appropriate perception that grows out of what is often an initiating, kataphatic glimpse. In the midst of apophatic apprehension, one would watch each of the familiar, kataphatic metaphors—king, father, judge, for instance—fail and fall away, revealing a glimpse of appalling enormity far beyond any of the gestures by which we attempt to define God.

    I like how Saint Gregory of Nyssa puts it after he puzzles and pores over the Exodus passage regarding how Moses enters the darkness and finds God within it: “The true knowledge and true vision of what we seek consists precisely in this—in not seeing, for what we seek transcends knowledge, and is everywhere cut off from us by the darkness of incomprehensibility.”

    Simone Weil offers a very likely account of this apophatic vision when she writes:

    “A case of contradictories, both of them are true. There is a God. There is no God. Where is the problem? I am quite sure that there is a God in the sense that I am sure my love is no illusion. I am quite sure there is no God, in the sense that I am sure there is nothing which resembles what I can conceive when I say the word.”

    To be fair, all theology—all “God talk”—bears at least a trace of both flavors. I’m pretty sure that most actual theologians, pressed on the point, would concede that all of their assertions about God come down, at best, to being words about what has been revealed by Him rather than words defining Him.

    And the reason that all of these folks, confronted by the impossibility of defining God, don’t just shut up—and it is possibly the reason that even Simone Weil, for all her genuine, hard-won humility, didn’t just keep her disturbing thoughts to herself—is that we are none of us in this for ourselves alone. Our selves, alone is finally a very undesirable circumstance, perhaps even a profoundly satanic circumstance.

    For Saint Gregory Palamás spoke, the issue came down to how we might acknowledge, on the one hand, God’s absolute beyond-us-ness, and, on the other hand, God’s condescending love for us, and union with us, as revealed by His apparent desire that we partake of His Holy being.

    Saint Gregory Palamás spoke, therefore, of a difference between presuming to know God in His essence and our coming to know God in His energies. We cannot—not ever, according both to Saint Gregory Palamás and to long-standing Orthodox conversation—hope to know God in His essence, but we can know of Him in His energies. We can witness His works, His acts, His effects; moreover, we can experience them, experientially know them. Such knowledge enables—one might say that such knowledge animates—our faltering faith, just as participating in, partaking of, those divine energies animates our faltering life.

    Saint Gregory Palamás and the other holy hesychasts of Mount Athos lived by these energies, which by habits of contemplative prayer they came more fully to apprehend and to appreciate. By these habits of prayer, they understood that humankind was created in order to (again, my favorite figure for this) lean into those energies, as it were, on them and in them.

    My guess is that—inveterate choosers that we are—we are forever leaning one way or another. Choosing to lean into the Holy Presence is to taste, here and now, of the kingdom of God; choosing to lean away is to taste, here and now, hell.

    The monks of Mount Athos lived deliberately by these energies in the twelfth century and long before; they live by them today, as do we, if not so consciously and deliberately. Not all of the monks on Mount Athos—nor all of the monasteries there—pursue an absolutely hesychast tradition, but all do cultivate elements of that tradition, in particular constant awareness of God’s Presence, and the desire that our lives become prayer.

    This, then, is the significance of lives of prayer, a significance I’m beginning to better understand as I go along. Such lives are lives composed of prayer. As the Orthodox theologian Paul Evdokimov puts it: “It is not enough to say prayers; one must become, be prayer, prayer incarnate. It is not enough to have moments of praise; all of life, each act, every gesture, even the smile of the human face, must become a hymn of adoration, an offering, a prayer. One should offer not what one has but what one is.”

    3) I would be interested if you would add some words to the last two(-ish) lines of the poem that seem to bring up the idea of community in the study of God.

    1. 1) A pollster, in his science, aims to know the views of the body politic. A biologist, in his science, aims to know the operations of the human body. Success is measured by reaching their respective objectives. A theologian, in his science, aims to know the nature and actions of God, but he can never succeed because God, although partially knowable through his natural and special revelation, remains beyond our knowing.

      2) Thanks for sharing the protracted quotation from Cairns’ memoir, which reinforces some points in my unaided interpretation of his poem. How did my commentary enrich your understanding?

      3) In the final stanza, the “we” refers to theologians and laypersons alike; “we’ll make the way [in knowing God] together.” The speaker, who is a layperson, expresses gratitude to theologians (“you”) for not rushing ahead. Knowing God is the business of the whole church, not a rarefied guild.

  2. Your commentary enriched my understanding of the poem in that it brought the poem to my mind as a work of theology. This piece is of course a poem. But, when reading poetry, it is easy to think of it as merely a poem, and not allow the work to do all the various work it can do. This poem is also a piece of theology in a way, and it was easy for me to compartmentalize it.

Leave a comment