I do not cede to the charge that I am presenting a “system”, at least not as I understand the term used in philosophy or theology. The fact of the matter is simply that the common terms of Christian theology are inter-related, if by nothing more than their prolonged history. To state a vision of them in a coherent sentence or two does not create a system, unless grammaticians are now calling sentences systems.
My endeavour has been to keep the items of the heart and the items of the mind in their proper spheres. That which philosophy (specifically, metaphysics, natural theology, philosophy of religion) beholds may well be that which religion and spirituality behold, but the language of the mind cannot be used for the language of the heart. One does not send a syllogism or an equation as a love letter, and one cannot submit a billet-doux as an academic thesis. To confuse these tongues is to concoct a farraginous attempt at communication, a patois comprehensible, at best, to an esoteric and fringe clique. Religions around the globe are in trouble or troublesome precisely because of this misuse of language, this confused and misdirected attempt at communication.
“God” and “Absolute” may refer to the same ground of an experience or inference, but the first term is proper to the language of religion, the second term to the language of philosophy. One is not saved by thinking profound thoughts, and one does not become a philosopher by doing good deeds.
It may be argued that philosophy, given to speculation and reflection on both the items of religion and science, straddles the divide between heart and mind, but in so far as philosophy is a chamber of serious second thought, analysis and synthesis, it is a creature of mind. Philosophy is about expanding the understanding, envisioning the fuller picture. Religion is about being beheld and beholding, the enriching of the appanage of love.