If so? To me, this seems like a very useful approach. You seem to be talking in effect about the “art” of theology; even the fine art of understanding God.

For myself, to be sure, this is not my own approach at the present time. Barth’s endless, artful equivocation between different voices, contrasting ideas – even between the views of believers, vs. unbelievers?; or German rational religion, vs. belief – eventually cloys. For me, perpectual, suggestive coyness, endless flirtation with two or more theses, finally becomes …cloying. I believe our own era might finally require … some far clearer, unequivocal statements. At least to clearly counter Fundamentalism, or Right Wing religion, for example, with a clearly opposing voice.

No doubt though, this “artistic” approach – “reading” God as an endlessly complicated and multifaceted text or poem or painting – could easily sustain an entire, successful career, it seems to me. If anyone is interested.

Ironically, many traditionally have seen church”dogmas” or canon law in particular, to be an area of creative interpretation. Which seems true in fact to say recent (1917; c. 1983) Catholic canon law. Indeed, the original language of canon law, seems rather artistic /poetic /polysemic. In an effort to accomodate many otherwise conflicting theologies; views of God. In fact, artistic/poetic polysemy or equivocation, is found not just in canon law – but also I’d suggest, the Bible itself. (See Richard Bauckham and others on the Bible as “literature”?).

To be sure, there is an irony, and a danger, in making church dogma and so forth – dogma being normally synonymous with fixity, dogmatism – an area for creative interpretation. But indeed, many phrases in both the Bible, and also Church canon law, are written with often artful polysemy. Freely encouraging a artistic, multifaced, even equivocal reading. In attempts to incorporate two or more points of view, or two or more theologies, whenever possible.

An “artistic” approach to dogma and even the Bible itself, seems viable therefore. And might complement various Post Modern theologies, centered around art or theatre/”performance.” (Like Van H’s?).