Winner of the Louisville Grawemeyer Award in Religion. This classic explains what feminist theology is and how can we rediscover the feminine God within the Christian tradition. A profound vision of Christian theology, women’s experience, and emancipation.
| ||||||||||||||||||
Book Description
Frequently Bought Together
Editorial Reviews
From Library Journal
As perhaps the best book of feminist theology to date, She Who Is is at once thoroughly orthodox, grounded in classical Christian thought, liberatingly contemporary, and rooted in women's experience. Johnson reviews the history of Christian language about God and explains the need for feminist language about God, thereby providing background for nontheologians. She then develops an inclusive and creative Christian spiritual doctrine. Highly recommended for all collections serving educated lay readers, theologians, and clergy.
Copyright 1992 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
Copyright 1992 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
Review
Readers will find this incisive survey to be the finest yet written in the area of feminist theological discourse. -- Choice
--This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
More About the Author
Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.
Customer Reviews
Share your thoughts with other customers
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
85 of 97 people found the following review helpful
By A Customer
Format:Paperback
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!
35 of 40 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
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.
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.
37 of 43 people found the following review helpful
Format:Hardcover
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.
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.
Most Recent Customer Reviews
5.0 out of 5 stars
truly inspired
For all who want an experience of God in a feminine dimension. This was one of the most important books I have ever read. You will meet God as you never have before. Read more
Published 19 days ago by Constance Cusumano
5.0 out of 5 stars
Provocative and Enlightning
It's a bit heavy to get through but well worth the time invested in studying it. I am one of the women who is convinced that there were more than 12 disciples and that there were... Read more
Published 29 days ago by Surya-Patricia Lane Hood
4.0 out of 5 stars
Good in Condition
The book looks nice and in great condition. Since it is a used one, those notes which appeared on the book helps a lot while reading for class
Published 2 months ago by sc020449
5.0 out of 5 stars
She Who Is: book delivery rating
She Who Is: Mystery of God in Feminist Theological Discourse by Elizabeth Johnson arrived ahead of schedule and in good nick. Read more
Published 7 months ago by Maria
5.0 out of 5 stars
A NOTED CATHOLIC FEMINIST THEOLOGIAN DISCUSSES "GOD LANGUAGE"
Elizabeth A. Johnson (born 1941) is a Christian feminist theologian and Professor of Theology at Fordham University, as well as a member of the Sisters of St. Read more
Published 12 months ago by Steven H. Propp
4.0 out of 5 stars
Challenging Perspectives
I found this book difficult and challenging to negotiate through. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Read more
Published on February 5, 2011 by C. Temple
4.0 out of 5 stars
(S)he Who Is
Professor Johnson jumps through a labyrinth of spinning theological hoops to say in nearly 300 pages what might have been said in one line: "You and I know that God is not... Read more
Published on May 26, 2010 by Richard B. Smith
5.0 out of 5 stars
World changing possibilities
Women in power decision-making positions absolutely could change the world perspective and become a direct channel to peace. Read more
Published on May 5, 2010 by Anita L. Mathews
4.0 out of 5 stars
Theology of Sophia
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... Read more
Published on September 13, 2005 by Tedd Steele
5.0 out of 5 stars
Interesting for both, men and women, lay-people and clerics.
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. Read more
Elizabeth Johnson starts by looking for an appropriate word in order to refer to the Divine. Read more
Published on March 26, 2004 by Roland M. Poirier
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Sell a Digital Version of This Book in the Kindle Store
If you are a publisher or author and hold the digital rights to a book, you can sell a digital version of it in our Kindle Store.
Learn more
