Customer Reviews

She Who Is: The Mystery of God in Feminist Theological Discourse

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

I was first introduced to this classic when I began researching my undergraduate thesis on women's oppression in Christianity. I was then, and still am, thoroughly impressed with Johnson's work. Her scholarship is impecable, reasoning very solid, and takes a well-rounded approach. This work is founded in tradition, yet manages to break from the aspects of tradition which are oppressive. Her philosophical background is also quite solid. You can't get any better than Elizabeth Johnson. She is masterful at weaving theological discourse and spirituality together. This is not a theological head-trip! The relevance of her work not only applies to theologians, it applies to laypersons as well. The sections on Sophia are particularly moving. Johnson also manages to address the issue of exclusive God-language in a subtle manner, which a reader would be hardpressed to take offense to, and presents new inclusive ways of speaking about God founded in biblical scholarship, All in all, this is a fantastic work of theology with elements of spirituality. I can't recommend it enough!

Johnson makes a compelling case that much of historical Christian language, theology and praxis establishes an inherent superiority for men and an inherent inferiority for women that is simply antithetical to our universal human nature as persons created equally in the image of God. She wants to eradicate the differentiation that has long existed between the genders' respective abilities to connect with God. She suggests that our typical and careless anthropomorphism of God allows the biblical masculine language to create a false sense that God is literally male, when a true understanding of God allows God's mysterious, unknowable nature to far exceed any sense of gender (or any other tangible description that we might use). Instead, she suggests that we use both masculine and feminine language to name God, knowing full well that neither is a literal depiction of God's gender but rather a symbolic way to communicate some hints of God's true nature.

There were many aspects of Johnson's book that were intriguing and challenging to me. First and foremost, I was thankful for her gracious spirit and her complete disinterest in axe-grinding. I appreciated her commitment to meaningfully engage with Scripture, especially the Gospel accounts, rather than simply avoiding all of the inconvenient passages of Scripture that did not support her position. I was grateful that she refused to abandon or completely denigrate church tradition, instead trying to acknowledge aspects of church history that were more sympathetic to women and even trying to explain and clarify the eras and individuals throughout history who diminished the value of women. Her commitment to engaging the creeds and church fathers, rather than simply discarding them as misogynist icons of historical ignorance, was commendable and made her case significantly more compelling to me.

She has completely convinced me (or at least reinforced and reinspired me) about her main point, that men and women are equally created in the image of God, equally worthy (or unworthy, as I might clarify) of salvation, equal participants in the mystery of redemption, and equally able to function as representatives of Jesus here on earth. And I appreciate how she explained our historic collective failure to carefully speak and think about God in ways that would not accidentally or intentionally disenfranchise women.

Having acknowledged some significant convictions and points of resonance with the book, I remain uncomfortable with several of Johnson's assertions and am unwilling to go where she might want me to go. It seemed as if the entire premise of her argument originates as a response to the reality of the disenfranchisement, oppression, and abuse of women that she rightly identifies throughout Christian history. But as far as I'm concerned, this reactionary starting point is an unstable way to begin an idea because the conclusion has already been reached. She naturally concludes that since women are often oppressed, and Christian doctrine has sometimes been the cause of this oppression, then anything that might even hint of some sort of appropriate leadership or submissive role between the genders must inherently be a mistake, a misinterpretation of God's will for humanity. But it seems to me that this easily leads to the classic mistake of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Just because women have been short-changed by the misapplication of Scripture as an excuse for men to dominate them, this does not mean that we must find a way to suggest that men and women are exactly the same in reference to God.

She asserts that complementarianism is equivalent to patriarchal dominance, but she did not really make this case. Instead, she just assumes it. I would suggest that we are certainly equal in value to God, but there may actually be something inherently different in the way that God looks at men from how God looks at women, based strictly on our created nature as gendered beings. But Johnsons seems to so vehemently oppose this mere possibility as to preclude it from the beginning, meanwhile scrambling to find any and all evidence to suggest otherwise. That's just not a compelling way to make a case, especially when the case you're trying to make flies in the face of the entirety of Christian tradition and interpretive history of the Scriptures. And she can only land where she does by ignoring several significant passages written by the Apostle Paul that do seem to suggest a clear differentiation between men and women in relation to each other. I'm not merely suggesting that I disagree with her, but I think she was a bit sloppy in failing to engage in this point more honestly and comprehensively, instead choosing to start with the answer seemingly in mind.

I also thought that she settled into a significant logical inconsistency. Johnson argues vehemently and repeatedly that all of humanity has been created equally in the image of God and all have equal opportunity to fully participate in the redemption that God intends for us. Yet, there were several points when she implies or even states that God's restorative plan is especially and uniquely intended for the oppressed and downtrodden, specifically pointing to the poor and disenfranchised, even more specifically women. But she can't have it both ways. If God's love and restorative plan is equally intended for all people, who are all equally created in the image of God, then this must mean that privileged rich white guys are no less worthy of God's love than are poor women. Again, I found her discussion of this idea to be unsatisfying and sloppy.

I also struggled with her separation of Jesus of Nazareth from Christ of the Godhead, which seemed bizarre and over-exaggerated to me. Of course, her theology depends upon the maleness of Jesus' (which she willingly acknowledges) having absolutely no impact on the identify of Christ the Messiah, so I can understand her inclination in this direction. But she took this point so far as to imply that Jesus and the Christ were virtually unrelated, that Jesus was merely a shell into which Christ's incarnation was facilitated. This seems like quite a stretch to me, and again inconsistent with the Scriptures and interpretive history.

Finally, I was disappointed by the extent of her pluralism, related to other religious expressions outside of Christianity. She implied on numerous occasions that humanity's understanding of God is not necessarily distinct from one religion to another. She especially seems to equate Christianity and Judaism as virtually the same thing, thereby further devaluing Jesus Christ as the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Though I understand her respect for other faith traditions, her willingness to lump them all together as merely different ways for Mother God to connect with humanity felt rather inconsistent with the gospel message as I know it.

I'm glad that I read this book. It challenged my assumptions and forced me to seriously reconsider some theological constructs that have seemed fairly obvious to me. Several of her positions were incomplete or unsatisfying to me, and I'm certainly not on board with all of her conclusions. But I'm happy to recommend this book to anyone who might be willing to consider that we have not served God or God's people well by the language and images that we so often use to describe God.

An excellent book that one should take enough time to read slowly and thoroughly.
Elizabeth Johnson starts by looking for an appropriate word in order to refer to the Divine. It is common practice to say that God is Spirit. An interesting thing about this is that the word "Spirit" has gradually shifted from being feminine in Hebrew, to neutral in greek and ultimately masculine in latin. This is not much of a surprise in a male-dominated world. In itself this does not necessarily indicate an improvement in the adequacy of our concept of God. But if we consider this particular history of the word, it may suggest that in order to improve our image of God, we need at least to integrate all three aspects: the feminine, the neutral and the masculine.
This will help us take into consideration the fact that God transcends all categories. It will help us deepen our perception of God as mystery.
The important for all those who try to link with the Absolute is to know that God is, more than to know exactly what she, it, or he, is.
Another interesting fact that the author points out in the same perspective, is that the Spirit as such, has never been given a proper name.
Spirit is considered more often than not as an impersonal power, like a blowing wind or a breath in motion.
The title of the book is a clear indication that the author approaches the mystery of God from a feminine point of view.
This is done in a constructive way, without being too aggressive. Even when she suggests that Christ's ability to be savior does not reside in his maleness, but in his huge and steadfast capability to love.
More challenging are her comments on the suggestion made by a number of authors, that the Spirit was, at least for some time, hypostatically united to Mary.
To my view, this offers a good way of understanding the Christian creed when it claims that Christ was conceived from the Spirit and born from Mary.
Altogether, this book is a good incentive for women, but also a real challenge for men.
As a follow-up I would recommend the reading of her more recent book "Truly our sister". Quite logically, after dealing in the present book, with the feminine in God she focuses in the new one, on Mary as a major symbol of the feminine in humankind who also enjoyed a unique relationship to the feminine in God.

Johnson writes with an ultimate goal in mind, that of a transformation into new community. Her vision is one in which harmony with each other and with the earth are realized; an eschatological dream of a new heaven and a new earth where justice dwells and partnership reigns.
As a first step toward this vision her book offers theologicaly founded evidence for expanding our image of God. Language functions; selling a god of violence,or superiority based on maleness or color is not helping us to realize a vision of the kindom of God put forth by Jesus-one where all are included at God's loving banquet. Without this first step toward expanding God's image we humans will always be in violent dissonance with each other and with the earth.
I have read this book no less than six times, it has infomed my vision of the world and my personal goals in life. The language she uses is poetical and moves to the core of our being linking us with the holy.

It should be obvious that there are many male-oriented interpretations of the reality and presence of God, but their male-ness goes unnoticed until an alternative feminist perspective makes it evident by contrast. Even when Johnson criticizes some feminist ideas about God, her clear and forceful descriptions break open categories of how we might think about God. No theology of God, no course about God, is adequate without taking into account the balanced and scholarly analyses Johnson provides.

Over the course of Christian history, women have been disenfranchised and oppressed. Patriarchal systems and androcentric mentalities have marginalized women sociologically and psychologically, even within the Christian community. Elizabeth Johnson believes this oppression stems from the language used for God. Because God is referred to exclusively and literally as a male, women have reduced roles within Christianity. Johnson seeks to use new imagery and metaphors for speech about God, in order to emancipate women from this oppression. Johnson recognizes that all language about God is inadequate, but using feminine imagery for God restores human dignity in women and men and helps with the flourishing of humanity.

Structurally, Johnson achieves this goal in four parts. In Part I, Johnson provides context and background for new speech about God. Because speech about God influences identity and praxis, new language for God must be sought. A solution to this problem can be explored using feminist theology, and Johnson provides basic feminist principles for theology. Lastly, Johnson discusses traditional approaches to speaking inclusively about God, and establishes that it is her intent to use only feminine imagery for God. Moving from the background to the foreground, Johnson builds her methodology, in Part II, by using three resources: experience, scripture, and classical theology. The experience of women is central to her theology, and while scripture is integral, Johnson seeks the reclamation of feminine imagery. Johnson also salvages certain principles in classical theology to use in her theology: the divine incomprehensibility, the need for analogy in God-speak, and the need for many names for God. In Part III, Johnson applies reclaimed feminine imagery to each Person in the Trinity. Beginning with the Spirit, and then moving to Jesus and God, Johnson explores what feminine imagery points to in God. Finally, in Part IV, Johnson uses feminine symbols, culminating in SHE WHO IS, to explain the immanent Trinity, the economic Trinity, and God's relation to the suffering world.

Johnson sets out in this book to articulate metaphors for God that are feminine in nature. This serves to counter-balance prodominantly masculine metaphors received from classical tradition. The term Sophia is particularly important.

Johnson explores this topic in four sections. First, she discusses the importance of speech about God and the impact of a feminist perspective. Second, she outlines three resources from which to draw feminine metaphors: women's experience, Scripture, and classical theology. Third, she articulates her understanding of the persons of the Trinity, beginning with the Spirit. Finally, she turns attention to the unity of God and God's suffering.

This book should be required reading for all men interested in theology. We must be aware of the importance of our speech about God. I have only two concerns. First, although Johnson does not seek to eliminate masculine metaphors for God, she avoids them totally in her book. This creates a tension between two equally exclusive forms of speech. Second, the experience of women is important in the book. This is only a problem if we allow experience to alter the way we understand God rather than allowing our understanding of God to illumine our experience. Johnson comes closer to the former.

This is a thought provoking book. It should be read by all interested in speaking of God faithfully.

This book is a remarkable balance of scholarship and inspiration. The author, who also wrote Consider Jesus, has a mastery of Christian theology, including patristic and medieval. She has also incorporated a great deal of contemporary reflection on the suffering God and God's love and compassion. What impressed me most about the book, however, is that while the author sees how important language is in determining how people believe and how they understand themselves and God, she herself isn't just playing language games. Her analysis of sophia, Jesus, and God is all done in the service of seeking truth, a truth that is both informative and inspiring. Surely not everyone with agree with Johnson's ideas, but she is such a clear and balanced writer, even those who disagree will be challenged by her book. I recommend it highly.

Women in power decision-making positions absolutely could change the world perspective and become a direct channel to peace. Changing 2000 years of policy in church hierarchy is not only possible but valid and necessary in creating a just world.

Using Feminist Theology, Johnson makes a remarkable comparison and introduction using the Old Testament story of Sophia, Wisdom. Brilliantly she explains Spirit Sophia, Jesus-Sophia, and finally Mother-Sophia adding a feminine spin on the discourse. We come away understanding a care giver God, a Jesus who is a nurturer, and God as a Mother of birth, bringing forth life and teaming with creation.