Having examined the Bishops’ critique of Johnson’s method in my last post, I want to move on to their claims about her theory of language—particularly her claim that all God-talk is metaphorical. [It is interesting to note that Johnson develops this idea in great depth in She Who Is, which to my knowledge has never attracted the Bishops’ attention. They certainly don’t cite it in the statement, which is unfortunate as it might have cleared up some of these misunderstandings.]
The Bishops agree with Johnson that “the Catholic theological tradition affirms that no human language is adequate to express the reality of God. Catholic teaching maintains that human concepts apply to God only in an analogous fashion” (Statement 7). However, the catechism argues that while religious language doesn’t express God, it still attains to 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 7). Already we can see where some of the difficulty is. How can language attain to God if it doesn’t “express him?” This should signal to us that we must be incredibly careful when speaking about God-talk.
The Bishops fault Johnson for not maintaining this latter criteria:
“While Sr. Johnson is well within the Catholic theological tradition when she maintains that human language is never adequate to express the reality of God, she departs from that tradition when she makes the more radical claim that human language does not attain to the reality of God. For her, the meaning of the concept “good” derived from our knowledge of creatures is “lost” when it is applied to God. ‘We literally do not understand what we are saying. Human comprehension of the meaning of ‘good’ is lost, for we have no direct earthly experience of anything that is the Source of all goodness’ (19)” (Statement 8).
The Bishops are quoting a section of the text where Johnson is describing what she calls the “ground rules for the journey.” Briefly, they are as follows:
1) God is mystery.
2) No expression can be taken literally.
3) Therefore, we need a plurality of names for God.
While explaining 2), Johnson refers to the doctrine of analogy. It appears from this section that her claim about the metaphorical nature of all language is little else than a statement about the analogy of being and its consequences for God-talk. Let’s look at the entire passage in question then, in which Johnson is using the transcendental ‘good’ as an example:
Take, for example, the term “good.” Inevitably, our understanding of what “good” means arises from our experience of goodness in the world. We experience good persons, good satisfactions, good weather, and so on. From these we derive a concept of goodness that we then affirm of God who created all these good things. But God is infinite, so we need to remove anything that smakes of restriction. Thus we negate the finite way goodness exists in the world, shot through with limitation. But still we think God is good, so we negate that particular negation and judge that God is good in a supremely excellent way that surpasses all understanding. According to analogy, when we attribute goodness to God the theological meaning is this: God is good; but God is not good the way creatures are good; but God is good in a supereminent way as Source of all that is good.
At this point our concept of goodness cracks open. We literally do not understand what we are saying. Human comprehension of the meaning of “good” is lost, for we have no direct early experience of anything that is the Source of all goodnesss. Yet the very saying of it ushers or spirit toward the presence of God who is good, a reality so bright that it is darkness to our mind. In the end, the play of analogy brings us to our knees in adoration (Quest 18-19).
I find it hard to believe that the Bishops found this section problematic. Johnson is reiterating a fairly standard account of analogy. At this point, we are not just looking at a failure to navigate the very complicated distinction between metaphor and analogy and their various permutations. The Bishops have lifted a sentence out of context to prove the exact opposite of what Johnson is arguing. Johnson both maintains the first affirmation and the second negation, both of which predicate God as good. To make it appear otherwise by only quoting part of the via triplex of negative theology is absolutely irresponsible scholarship.
Continuing her discussion of analogy, Johnson demonstrates the resonances the concept has with the (often Protestant) accounts of metaphor and contemporary (often Catholic) concepts of symbol. It should be noted that in contemporary theology, all three of these terms are used in such broad and overlapping ways that it is not obvious at first read how “thick” a thinker’s conception of the respective term is—whether it is ontological or merely linguistic, whether it is sacramental, etc. As such, we should examine how the theologian is actually using the term. Johnson herself recognizes that these terms are difficult to distinguish, but provides a helpful, though broad, definition:
Whatever theory is used, whether analogy, metaphor, symbol, or some combination thereof, the wisdom of this second ground rule is that we are always naming toward God, using good, true, and beautiful fragments experienced in the world to point to the infinite mystery who dwells within and embraces the world but always exceeds our grasp (Quest 20).
If language doesn’t “attain to God” then I hardly know what Johnson could mean when she uses the word “true.”
The Bishops then complain that Johnson claims that God is unknowable and not just incomprehensible:
While God is a mystery that cannot be fully comprehended and thus fully articulated, nonetheless, according to the Catholic theological tradition it is possible to make statements about God that are true even if they do not express the fullness of the mystery. That tradition acknowledges that there is a difference between God’s being incomprehensible and God’s being unknowable. To say that God is not comprehensible is to say that he cannot be completely known and understood. On the other hand, God is knowable in the sense that human concepts do reflect some real if limited knowledge of God. For Sr. Johnson, if God is incomprehensible, he is also unknowable. This is incorrect (Statement 8).
But does Johnson actually say that God is unknowable? Johnson describes exactly what she means by God’s incomprehensibility in the first chapter of the book, where she describes the reasons why the quest for the living God is an ongoing quest:
First, the very nature of what is being sought is incomprehensible, unfathomable, limitless, ineffable, beyond description. The living God literally cannot be compared with anything in the world. To do so is to reduce divine reality to an idol. This divine magnitude means that no matter how much we know, the human mind can never capture the whole of the living God in a net of concept, images, or definitions, or preside over the reality of God in even the most exalted doctrines. A Zen-like riddle preached by Augustine preserves this wisdom succinctly: “If you have understood, it is not God” (Sermon 117.5). If you have fully figured out who God is, then you are dealing with something else, some lesser reality. It is a matter of the livingness of God, who is not just a bigger and better object in the world but unspeakably Other” (Quest 12-13).
Here, Johnson defines God’s incomprehensibility in reference to our knowledge of God—a strange feat for someone who argues that God is unknowable! We are on a quest not because we lack knowledge of God, but because we never come to the end of God. God is deeper than our glance can penetrate. Far from a hopeless and futile unknowing, those on the quest rejoice that there is always more to know about the God we love and who loves us.
[...] UPDATE: Part III is here. [...]
Great series so far Erin.
Thanks Rod!!
Great response! I am utterly shocked at the bishops’ criticism of her discussion of what it means to call God “good.” That is standard, orthodox, traditional, and honestly, NOT THAT HARD TO UNDERSTAND. It’s really depressing that the committee on doctrine either misunderstood a passage that is pretty easy to read or that they willfully misinterpreted it.
Erin, thanks for this breakdown of the USCCB’s critique. While I haven’t read Quest for the Living God, yet, even as I read the USCCB’s statement I couldn’t help but think “gee, Johnson talked about this in She Who Is, and this doesn’t seem like a fair portrayal of her position at all.”
However, I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on the USCCB’s critique of “The Presence of God in All the Religions?” If her position is accurately portrayed by the bishops (something easily doubted in light of what you’ve written), this is a stronger position for Johnson compared to She Who Is, where she only briefly touched on the idea of the Spirit being present in places where belief in the Incarnation is not (this was a point that garnered a great deal of discussion in a recent class of mine).
Hi Lorraine, thanks for reading.
I want to revisit that section and get back to you. I know that Johnson explicitly maintains the particularity of Christ (a fact the Bishops’ statement glosses over), but I forget the exact framework she’s working from and am loathe to write on it until I look at the text again.
I’ll be in touch! Though you should totally just read it. It’s quick, you could easily do it in an evening.
I just want to say how impressed I am at the discussion on this blog concerning the Bishop’s committee on doctrine’s censure of Beth Johnson’s Quest for the Living God. It really gives me great hope for the future of theology –especially theology done by women in the church! This is excellent theological commentary! Would that the committee had employed some of you among its consultants!
Hi Professor Hinsdale!
Thank you so much for your comment. We are all deeply frustrated with the censure for Dr. Johnson’s sake as well as for the sake of feminist theology as a whole. It is very encouraging to have your support!
Peace,
Erin
I had similar reactions to all this (from a much less expert POV). The claim that “For Sr. Johnson, if God is incomprehensible he is also unknowable” just doesn’t hold up against the book. It doesn’t even make sense — why would she bother writing this book if she believed that? Why do theology at all? I suppose it might seem plausible to someone who already suspects that feminist/contemporary theologians are out to tear down the faith from within. But surely the bishops’ critique should not take that presumption as a starting point.
I suppose you’ll be getting to this, but it seems like a version of the same mistake to me: Later (on p. 12), in the “New Names for the Unknown God” section, the bishops assert that “For Sr. Johnson, language for God should be analyzed not primarily in terms of its adequacy for expressing the reality of God — all human language fails to attain the reality of God — but in terms of its socio-political effects.” You don’t even have to go to the text to show that this is a distortion. At the end of the same paragraph the bishops quote this line from her book (re: all-male hierarchical images for God): “Instead of evoking the reality of God, they block it.” Explain to me again how that proves she doesn’t want to consider the adequacy of God-language in terms of its “expressing the reality of God”?
Hi Mollie!
Thanks for reading! Your analysis is helpful. I just finished reading your blog over at commonweal. You’ve really captured the Bishops’ errors quite clearly.
There is still much much more to write on their claims about “metaphor” as this seems to take up the most space in the Bishops’ statement. I would still like to say something in general about her account and the incoherence of the Bishops statement (which you demonstrate brilliantly in your comment here and in your post on Commonweal).
We will be continuing to talk about this here at WIT and will likewise be looking out for more at Commonweal.
Peace,
Erin
[...] God to the Christian faith, and how God has promised to reveal himself to those who seek him. As Erin Kidd writes over at the Women in Theology blog (where a thorough response to the bishops’ critique is [...]
This is an interesting discussion – I haven’t read the book, but from what you’ve posted here it doesn’t seem to be departing too radically from an orthodox understanding of apophatic theology, one that fits “unknowing” and the incomprehensibility of the Godhead within the framework of the analogy of being. Again, I’d have to read the book to comment more helpfully, but I think you’re right to push back against these criticisms as the possibility of analogical knowledge of the divine is an area where it is very easy to miss subtle nuances.
[...] is summarized here and can be found in its entirety here), among them the excellent series going on at the WIT blog. As I note in a comment somewhere on that blog (somewhat more snarkily than was [...]
[...] Defense of the Quest Part IV: On Religious Language (ctd), Conclusions In my previous posts, I demonstrated that the Bishops misread Johnson’s critique of modern theism as well as her [...]
[...] I ; Part II ; Part III; Part [...]
I’ve been commenting on this situation on the America Magazine Blog while simultaneously reading your posts. I’m impressed with your critique of the USCCB document but I’ve not commented what you’ve written Ms Kidd because I want to read the book myself so I can form my own judgment before saying anything about what you’ve written.
I would, however, like to explore something you wrote in your reply to Anonymous’ comment because you seem to be implying that the question – “Is _Quest_ orthodox?” – is a secondary question. Now I am not sure if “secondary” equals “unimportant” in your mind and so I thought I’d ask: is that what you are implying? And if yes, why?
So that you have a context for why I am asking, I will tell you that I am what is called a “revert” to the Catholic Faith. I primarily catechize young adults and those interested in becoming Catholic Christians and so I serve the body of Christ in this capacity and have been doing so since I returned to Christ. So while I tend to focus on “positive theology” I am also familiar with “negative theology” but my area of interest and concentration is catechesis.
I know that you are not a Catholic but I take for granted that you know that the Catholic Church issued a universal Catechism which is “a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illuminated by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition, and the Church’s Magisterium.” Since the book outlines what Catholics believe and must assent to, it is considered a “sure norm for teaching the faith” and a Catholic can therefore look through it to verify whether a statement does or does not conform to what Christ teaches us through His Church. So, for example, if a Catholic claims that the Eucharist is merely a symbol, one can emphatically say that this does not conform to what Catholic’s believe.
From what I can see, the Bishops are interested in making sure that the Faith is not reduced to the religious sense and that the starting point is a Presence that has been met and loved. Unfortunately, some writers start from an absence, from the unknown, as if the Christian event never happened and we find ourselves once again in front of the unknown – so that I, with my religious sense, am gropingly trying to build the connection with this unknown on my own.
I think the whole point of all of these posts is to say quite definitively that the book is within the bounds of the tradition, to the point that I have to wonder what was going on with the committee to interpret and portray the book the way they did.
Hi Juan,
Thanks for coming over here from America and for your comments!
Let me clarify what I meant in that original comment. In response to Anonymous’ post on part IV I wrote:
“I’m sorry that I can’t offer more at this time, but this will be a question I will continue to think about. I do think that it is a much more important question to be asking than “Is _Quest_ orthodox?” though it will probably not be wrestled with enough until the latter is sufficiently established in the affirmative.”
By “important” here I meant “relevant” to the situation and “difficult” to answer. I don’t at all wish to diminish the importance of orthodoxy, I just want to place that conversation within lay education rather than academic disagreements.
To me, it’s obvious that _Quest_ is orthodox. I’m reading the book as presenting the lay reader with major developments in 20th-century theology, which have been received by the Church. BUT, if that causes scandal in a lay person reading it (perhaps because they have become too familiar with the idea of the distant kingly God and anything else seems threatening), then this is a problem which educators must take seriously.
Consider what is happening with Johnson’s text with the word “metaphor.” I think the Bishops are wrong to label it unorthodox–she is using the word in a sense that abides by the standards of language they themselves have laid out. But if “metaphor” seems like something weak and trivial in the minds of most people reading it, we are still in a quandary. If I remember right, you’ve mentioned that you work in catechesis. In that role, even if you end up agreeing with my assessment of the book, you might decide that because of the way the people you teach are used to understanding the word “metaphor,” (as something weak or trivial, not robustly ontological) it might actually be dangerous to use the word–at least without providing the proper framework. It is this type of discernment that I think is worth talking about, and I worry it won’t be.
These challenges seem more difficult to handle appropriately than just defending the orthodoxy of Johnson’s texts. They’re more “important” to me, because the stakes are highest when we are talking about how the text will be received in the community. That’s what is motivating the Bishops’ concern after all, right? The effect on the beliefs of the faithful who may read this? Unfortunately, I think if all we argue about is the orthodoxy of the book, we will never get to these harder questions.
I hope I’ve made it clear that I don’t wish to dismiss the priority of orthodoxy, but that I am deeply concerned with the pastoral implications of what we preach and teach.
Peace,
Erin
Building on my last paragraph – BTW, I am not implying that Sr. Johnson is doing this but if it turns out that “Quest” can be perceived as doing that then the Bishops have a duty to say what they said.
Again, once I read her book I will judge for myself.
[...] and defended Johnson’s book against the charges leveled at it. (Introduction, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4.) We also included some testimonials from some of Prof. Johnson’s former [...]
[...] treatment of Elizabeth Johnson and her most recent book, Quest for the Living God, about which WIT have had some thoughts, and on which the boards of directors of the Catholic Theological Society of [...]
[...] responding to the theological adequacy of the bishops’ complaints: Defense of the Quest I, II, III, IV. Dan Horan of Dating God also wrote some comments about the implications of Friday’s release [...]