WIT

We posted yesterday that WIT stands with Elizabeth Johnson against the USCCB, who has recently found fault with her book The Quest for the Living God. The press release is here; you can read the full report here. In her statement, Dr. Johnson makes it clear that she was never invited to dialogue with the Bishops about the text, nor does she think they give an accurate portrayal of her book:

First, I would have been glad to enter into conversation to clarify critical points, but was never invited to do so. This book was discussed and finally assessed by the Committee before I knew any discussion had taken place. Second, one result of this absence of dialogue is that in several key instances this statement radically misinterprets what I think, and what I in fact wrote. The conclusions thus drawn paint an incorrect picture of the fundamental line of thought the book develops. A conversation, which I still hope to have, would have very likely avoided these misrepresentations.

Many of us at WIT have not only found Johnson’s scholarship compelling, but have been personally moved by her dedication to feminist theology.  She was a member of the original WIT group who inspired this very community. With her masterpiece She Who Is, she encouraged an entire generation of feminist Christians to see that these two identities don’t have to be in contradiction. We are therefore saddened, outraged, and confused that the Bishops have published this statement, especially since they have not even offered her the chance of dialogue.

There is already a wonderful series of posts in Johnson’s defense over at Dating God. Daniel Horan’s first post is an introduction to both the book and the USCCB report; his second post wrestles more substantially with the political and theological motivations for the critique of Johnson, which center largely around a misunderstanding and fear of “contemporary theological engagement with the social and natural sciences” and  “modern (and postmodern) philosophical resourcing.” Go read those posts now, then come back over here for our analysis and defense.

First, allow me to introduce the text in question. In The Quest for the Living God, Johnson contrasts the dead God of modern theism with a number of 20^th and 21^st-century theological movements that proclaim the biblical, mysterious, ineffable, and loving God (Quest 4). Writing for a broad audience, Johnson seeks to map out these frontier theologies in order to provide a resource for theologians and non-theologians alike to reclaim an image of the living God (Quest 1-2). After her diagnosis of the current theological milieu, Johnson proceeds with chapters each on Karl Rahner, post-Shoah theology, liberation theology, feminist theology, black liberation theology, Latino/a theology, inter-religious dialogue, ecological pneumatology, and finally, Trinitarian theology.  Each chapter begins with a description of the context of the given theology, major (sometimes differing) voices within it, and finally Johnson’s identification of its basic insights. The annotated bibliography at the end of the section directs the reader to further readings. As many of the theologies she discusses are themselves largely rooted in praxis, Johnson is completing the hermeneutic circle by offering these theologies to her readers in order to seed further praxis and reflection.

The USCCB critiques the book on numerous small points. For the purpose of this review, we will deal with two of the Bishops’ biggest accusations: 1) Method: Johnson does not begin with the Church’s faith but with a critique of it based on secular reasoning and priorities. This causes her to confuse the deism of the Enlightenment with traditional Catholic teaching and therefore misrepresent the latter while rightly attacking the former (Statement 1-6). 2) God-Talk: Johnson’s conception of God-talk as metaphorical rather than literal fails to correspond with traditional Catholic teaching. It does not pass the Catechism’s paradoxical standard that God-talk attains but does not express God: “Admittedly, in speaking about God like this, our language is using human modes of expression; nevertheless it really does attain to God himself, though unable to express him in his infinite simplicity (no. 43)” (Statement 6-20, quote on 7). Since the Bishops themselves argue that Johnson’s method and theory of language are the source of the “errors” of her theology, it is prudent to defend her precisely on these issues (Statement 1, 20-21).

In the next 24 hours, I will be publishing defenses of Johnson’s method and her understanding of metaphor in God-talk. We’re practically live-blogging this issue over here at Wit, and I will be publishing as quickly as I can write. Keep in touch.

UPDATE: Part II is here.

UPDATE: Part III is here.

UPDATE: Part IV is here.