Today the USCCB website released news that the Bishop’s Doctrine Committee has found fault with Elizabeth Johnson’s book Quest for the Living God. We, the women of WIT, find the assessment of her work troubling in that it does not accurately represent her work; a more detailed post on this issue will follow in the next few days. Our immediate response is to say that we stand with her. As a brilliant theologian and gifted teacher, she has been an inspiration to us all.
I look forward the the full WIT response, here is my initial take on the report: http://datinggod.org/2011/03/30/the-usccb-on-sr-elizabeth-johnsons-book-some-initial-comments/
So this is what Elizabeth says about the Trinity: “The revitalized idea of the Trinity makes clear that, far from existing as a monarch ruling from isolated splendor and lording it over others, the living God is an overflowing communion of self-giving love. The practical importance of this notion lies in the way it exposes the perversion of patriarchy, racism, and other sinful patterns.” In the next paragraph she adds, in regard to the church, “Only a community of equal persons related in profound mutuality, pouring out praise to God and care for the world in need, only such a church corresponds to the triune God it purports to serve.” (Quest for the Living God p. 223) Uh-huh! Guess we can see how this might upset the hierarchy.
Jane, I’m not sure what you mean exactly. Could you say a little bit more?
Hi, Megan —
Of course I want to let Jane speak for herself, but I think she’s expressing some of the frustration that all of us feel with the bishops’ failure to address structural injustice in the robust way that we long to see… that it often seems that what is actually a very common-sense critique of all forms of oppression is perceived as a threat.
Just an FYI update, here’s “part II” of my Elizabeth Johnson postings: http://datinggod.org/2011/03/31/on-the-politics-of-theology-fear-and-analogia-entis/
Keep up the great work at WIT!!
I don’t think I understand the distinction between “language of God as metaphor” and “language of God as analogy.”
I get the impression that the Committee construes the former as meaning “all language about God is equivocal.” But in ordinary parlance, I would think a “metaphor” would be much closer to analogical predication than equivocal.
I dunno, am I missing something?