Interpretation of the poem

I guess it is customary to put aside the emotion the poem evokes and criticize it formally at first. Then we can talk about meaning
Formal Analysis:
The poem is made up of 6 lines. The meter is interesting. The first line has 7 syllables, the second has 8, then 10, 11,10,8. There is a rhyme scheme but it is not easy to find. line 1 rhymes with line 5. Line 3 and 4 rhyme. Line 2 and 6 almost rhyme. The “if” in the poem is italicized.
Formalist Conclusions:
Six lines should produce and even flow, but the meter is not fluid. This gives the poem a finished (even) look and an unfinished sound--an important dichotomy to remember if we want to make any assumptions later. Likewise there is a rhyme scheme, which enhances the form and flow of the poem, but Alfred's sporadic splicing of the rhyme almost defeats the purpose of rhyming at all.

What does this mean?
It leads me to think that he is sure of himself, and yet very insecure at the same time. It could be a social commentary that people can think they know what they are and what is going on, but in reality they know less of themselves than they know of a flower growing in a cranny. In fact the word cranny itself seems to imply a crack in the wall or a hidden, dark place. If a crack, then it shows us that even though we can sculpt stone, cracks and crannies will eventually break out "solid foundations." If we could just understand a flower, perhaps we could begin understanding ourselves.
Why a flower?
Flowers are associated with beauty, love, summer, and even death and funerals. Each of these experiences have a deep emotion tied to them...whether positive or negative. A flower is delicate and yet has power to evoke such emotion. The root is shallow, not deep like a weed. This could mean that it wants only enough root to please the passerby and those who need a boost that the color and aroma can give; not like a weed whose sole purpose is to survive. It selfishly digs its roots as deeply as it can and will choke out surrounding plants to do so. It will steal their nutrients. A flower is not like that. This is just a "Little flower" and yet is very capable of sharing its color and smell with the poet.
So, what is the relation with God?
This is where it gets really interesting. The wall is a man-made object and liable to crack or cranny, but a foundation of God is solid and will never crack. The Flower is a simple and small thing, but perfect in its sphere. Mankind, compared to God is simple, and similar to a flower is perfectly designed to fulfill its purpose. If we could understand that, we could understand ourselves; and most importantly, if we can truly understand ourselves we can more clearly understand God. The “if” in the poem is italicized. There are many more interpretations and things to learn from Alfred, but I am tired tonight and have to let him be for a while.
What do you all think? Can you add to this? Can you argue otherwise? Let me know.