Poetry or Poet... Who's at the Top???

Emerson discusses the Poet and Shelley defends Poetry, each raising his subject to heights of perfection and purity denied by the other. Both men seek to enumerate the absolute sublimity of their chosen aspect of the art of putting into words the Something Greater they sense. Faith cannot be denied as a major component and driving force behind either Shelley's "Defense of Poetry" or Emerson's "The Poet". But where Emerson has faith in the (perhaps rare) genuine genius Poet who is able to overcome the limitations of a flawed humanity, producing art that allows them to become more fully human, Shelley has the utmost regard for the power of poetry to act as both an indicator and reformer of the poet soul.
Can one be said to be more "optimistic" than the other in regards to the human race? On first glance, I would probably respond that Shelley seems the more positive of the two men; however, because the essays do not address the issue from the same standpoint, the evaluation is complicated. Eventually, I believe I have arrived at the conclusion that Emerson (despite noting that we constantly "mis-write the poem") would hold humanity in a more optimistic light, at least in reference to the writing of poetry.
For Emerson, the person of the Poet, the genius who is able to tap into the primordial realm of the creative, does indeed exist and exist with a frequency that might surprise us if his criteria for evaluating mental faculties and creative impulses were truly followed. The poet is looked for by other humans hungering for the fullness of their humanity to be expressed in his contemporary craft. And while the men that Emerson recognizes as "Poets" might be "intoxicated" by imagination more-so than other men, they are also "gods" who poses a "greater depth" of intelligence than your average man.
Shelley, in contrast, places his confidence not in the ability of the Man to make good Poetry, but in the ultimate ability of Poetry to improve Man.
Reflecting on this question from a Christian standpoint, I wonder what my "stance" ought to be... do I believe that since Man is created in the image of a perfect Creator and He is revealed in the natural world, that "Poetry" (yes, capital 'P' for Shelley) flows from being, in some small way, part of that perfection? Or, do I believe that "Poetry" is a gift from God (possibly using anyone as a conduit) which has the ability to "improve" us, bringing us closer to that perfect image we once reflected so accurately? Or, option C, do I believe that both are true in some co-mingled, entwined sort of way?
I don't know. I believe fiercely in the value of humans as creative beings, possessed of creative ability by means of our origins while I also believe that God works through many mediums (if I may use another 'art' term) to do Divine work.
I suppose it really comes down to the fact that I understand the purpose of any human life to be tied inextricably with the gifts and talents given to one by God, some of which might well be an extraordinary combination of insight and knack with words that results in what Emerson would call a "Poet." Alrighty then... I suppose (if I had to choose) between placing the Poet or the Poetry at the top of the poetry-chain-of-command, I'd have to side with Emerson: the Poet.