What do you think?
Rate this book
Quest for the Living God (text only) 1st (First) edition by E. A. Johnson
Quest for the Living Mapping Frontiers in the Theology of God [Hardcover]Elizabeth A. Johnson (Author)
Hardcover
First published January 1, 2007
94 people are currently reading
535 people want to read
About the author
Elizabeth A. Johnson
41 books111 followersJohnson grew up in Brooklyn, New York, the oldest of seven children in an "Irish Catholic family." As a young adult she joined the religious order of the Sisters of Saint Joseph whose motherhouse is in Brentwood, Long island, NY. She received a B.S. from Brentwood College in 1964, an M.A. from Manhattan College in 1964.
1981, she became the first woman to earn a Ph.D. in theology at the Catholic University of America (CUA). CUA is a pontifical university of the Catholic Church and is the only university in the U.S. founded and sponsored by America's bishops. Johnson recalls that her experience there was "rich, respectful, and collegial," but was also "lacking in female presence." During her studies there in the 1970s Johnson observes, "I never had a woman professor, I never read one woman author. There were none to be had. It was a totally male education." CUA attempted to remedy this when Johnson herself was hired into a tenure-track position in Christology. She became one of the first female theologians allowed to receive a doctorate by the church authorities, as a result of the "liberalization decrees that capped the Second Vatican Council." Feminism had begun impacting the thinking and dialog of female Catholic theologians, and pioneering feminist theologians Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza and Sandra M. Schneiders influenced Johnson on feminist topics, including using feminine metaphors and language for God. Inspired by their example, Johnson and other women graduate students formed a group, "Women in Theology."
She has served as head of the Catholic Theological Society of America and the American Theological Society.
While at CUA in 1980 she felt profoundly affected by events of the Salvadoran Civil War when four American women, including three nuns, working as missionaries and helping oppressed people to escape violence, were abducted and killed by a death squad. Johnson mourned the women, but she "redirected her anguish by carrying out their mission in her own field of theology."
Johnson notes that leaders of her religious community encouraged her to enter the field of theology and pushed her to continue in spite of obstacles. "When I applied for tenure at Catholic University, I received the full positive vote of the faculty. But the outcome was in doubt because some bishops were not happy with an article I had written," she says, referring to her article questioning the traditional view of Mary as "humble and obedient." Though she contemplated leaving rather than facing the "arduous process of interrogation," General Superior Sister John Raymond McGann advised her not to give up, and Johnson did receive tenure.
Johnson had taught science and religion at the elementary and high school level, then taught theology at St. Joseph's College (New York) and at CUA before moving to Fordham in 1991. At Fordham, she was named Distinguished Professor in 1997 and "Teacher of the Year" in 1998.
1981, she became the first woman to earn a Ph.D. in theology at the Catholic University of America (CUA). CUA is a pontifical university of the Catholic Church and is the only university in the U.S. founded and sponsored by America's bishops. Johnson recalls that her experience there was "rich, respectful, and collegial," but was also "lacking in female presence." During her studies there in the 1970s Johnson observes, "I never had a woman professor, I never read one woman author. There were none to be had. It was a totally male education." CUA attempted to remedy this when Johnson herself was hired into a tenure-track position in Christology. She became one of the first female theologians allowed to receive a doctorate by the church authorities, as a result of the "liberalization decrees that capped the Second Vatican Council." Feminism had begun impacting the thinking and dialog of female Catholic theologians, and pioneering feminist theologians Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza and Sandra M. Schneiders influenced Johnson on feminist topics, including using feminine metaphors and language for God. Inspired by their example, Johnson and other women graduate students formed a group, "Women in Theology."
She has served as head of the Catholic Theological Society of America and the American Theological Society.
While at CUA in 1980 she felt profoundly affected by events of the Salvadoran Civil War when four American women, including three nuns, working as missionaries and helping oppressed people to escape violence, were abducted and killed by a death squad. Johnson mourned the women, but she "redirected her anguish by carrying out their mission in her own field of theology."
Johnson notes that leaders of her religious community encouraged her to enter the field of theology and pushed her to continue in spite of obstacles. "When I applied for tenure at Catholic University, I received the full positive vote of the faculty. But the outcome was in doubt because some bishops were not happy with an article I had written," she says, referring to her article questioning the traditional view of Mary as "humble and obedient." Though she contemplated leaving rather than facing the "arduous process of interrogation," General Superior Sister John Raymond McGann advised her not to give up, and Johnson did receive tenure.
Johnson had taught science and religion at the elementary and high school level, then taught theology at St. Joseph's College (New York) and at CUA before moving to Fordham in 1991. At Fordham, she was named Distinguished Professor in 1997 and "Teacher of the Year" in 1998.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 64 reviews
January 10, 2012
This is a difficult book to review. Nevertheless, I found it to be very informative, very interesting, hopeful and inspiring. You may be aware that this book has created considerable controversy within the Catholic Church. However, National Catholic Reporter recognized the author with the 2011 Person of the Year award. The author, Sr. Elizabeth Johnson, is a Catholic nun and a theologian. As you may suspect, her ideas regarding authority in the Church, the role of women, the love of God for people of all faiths or no faith, the disparity of wealth within and between nations, racism, the environment, etc., are not always in line with official Catholic teaching. I thought she was at her best when describing one God who is the same God who has been revealed to all peoples at all times, past,present and to come. It is a God who is not bound by the divisions within and between the many religions of the world. Sr. Elizabeth is equally impressive when she writes about the discrimination against women by religions and other world institutions and the often self-centered, controlling narcissism of many church leaders. Not always easy to read, but if you like books on spirituality, I would highly recommend this book with a five star rating.
July 12, 2008
This is a book for those seekers- especially from the Christian Catholic tradition- who are looking for clear and insightful descriptions of how various contemporary experiences of environmentalists, struggling poor, women, etc. are elaborating fresh articulations of the presence of the mystery of God in today's world. Rich annotated bibligraphies allow you to continue studies. Johnson is one of the hottest tickets on the theology stage today.
July 4, 2021
This book surveys 20th century theological developments within the Catholic tradition. Elizabeth Johnson is a “feminist” theologian - therefore it is not surprising that this book takes a very progressive angle. The book caused great controversy within the Catholic Church and signifies the expanding chasm between ministers (often center right) and academic theologians (often center left to far left) today.
While I disagree with Professor Johnson on theology, I found it an unpleasant read not because of those disagreements but because of what she failed to articulate. For example, after many “academic” types of long sentences, she still failed to explain what Liberation Theology meant. In contrast, a web page from Brown University (a progressive institution) laid it out precisely. She circumvented the issue of Marxism, and only brought it up in the middle of the chapter - whereas Liberation Theology is in essence Catholicism plus watered-down Marxism. Failure to admit it upfront just makes the issue harder to understand.
Like many issues of the day, I think we mostly agree with the symptoms. For example, poverty is evil. But the problem is what to do with it. This in part necessitates a distinguishment between relative and absolute poverty. If we start our discussion on absolute poverty (like what Professor Johnson did), but end up with a policy solution to relative poverty (again, like what Professor Johnson did) - then we are not precisely addressing the problem. I understand that theologians need to come up with an opinion in a local ministerial context, but economic policy is unfortunately a separate, equally complicated branch of knowledge that theologians just don’t have adequate training to deal with. Indeed, a great mistake in the modern world is the creep of praxis into theology - whereas the two should be separated for good reasons.
This brings to my discontentment about 20th century theology in general. Karl Rahner’s transcendental theology had some very interesting contributions. But do we need another theology to specifically address the horrors of the Holocaust? It was a great atrocity, but genocides and massacres happened throughout human history - do we really need a novo theology to address a particular suffering or evil? What value does it provide, by having God as a sufferer alongside us? Are there any fundamental insights provided by this argument, other than having some conciliatory value which may be useful in a ministerial context?
Similarly, I am at a loss with the vehement need to change God’s pronoun. The oppression of females in society is a social issue and not a theological issue. What realistic advancements has one made, by changing God’s pronoun to she, or they? When we say Jesus Christ is the incarnation of the female Sophia, aren’t we promoting hearsay? Is it really necessary to meditate the Gospel message in front of a Black, female Jesus? Doesn’t it exactly reflect people’s desire to make God his/her image, and not the reverse? Indeed, when a traditional white male imagery is used, people do not think about gender in God. But when a non-traditional, female imagery is used, people are explicitly invited to think about gender in God. All in all, Professor Johnson repeatedly attacks a theological strawman - the male supremacy and the patriarchal societal order - whereas these should be left out to sociology studies and not theology.
The Jesuits struggled with iconography with local cultures in early modern history. Whereas then the combination of Jesus with a local face had some practical value - cultures back then were segregated and it was hard to communicate a foreign concept independent of its context - today the deliberate changes to iconography only adds utility to a fabricated issue. No - BIPOCs are not deprived of our spiritual experience when we see a “white” Jesus. Spiritual experience is a free GIFT - it is bestowed regardless of the imagery in front of us.
The chapter on black liberation theology exposes the very confusion that modern theologians have when they expand their horizon deeper into sociology and political theory. What exact issues are theologians trying to address, in poetically praising the piety of African American slaves? Have we developed any useful insights to help us understand the nature of God and His Providence, beyond what we have already known through the Book of Jobs? Why did the biblical idea of being a servant of the Lord suddenly become obsolete in front of BIPOCs, while the Gospel was almost exclusively preached to slaves of their era? As contemporary Catholics contemplate the evils of past institutions, how did theologians jump to the conclusion that whiteness is a sin?
Repeatedly preaching the existence of white supremacy falsely attributes a social economic problem to skin color. Walk into a poor, desperate white neighborhood in the Rust Belt - do you read white supremacism as imagined by the coastal elites? Look at the economic realities in Latin America and the vast differences between Chile and Argentina - do you think the Marxist way is the correct way to resolve poverty? Now theologians want to weave these distorted observations of the society into theology - in an attempt to eternalize these faulty conclusions.
Importantly, Marxism’s tainting of contemporary theology negates substantially all the New Testament message. The repeated usage of the word “power” disguises itself as something protective of the disadvantaged but in essence incites everything other than the Gospel Love. By juxtaposing one group of people against another, it creates points of conflict without actually resolving them. What happened to “if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also”? The world becomes the poor versus the rich, women versus men, LGBT versus the non-LGBT, BIPOC versus White - the “oppressed” versus the “non-oppressed”. In these new theologies, one should fight the institutions that create these injustices. But I humbly ask - what Utopia do you think you will create? Isn’t the fundamental Christian message “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” good enough for God’s providence? Alas, the Thomist tradition is concluded as inadequate, but is this new theology the best we can offer as a new generation?
Despite its many shortcomings, the Christian tradition should be by and large a tradition of peace. In a deeply unstable society such as America today, the Church should function to bring people to the core messages of Christianity. The Church should precisely not incite further confrontations. Additionally, the Church should invite young people within the Church’s tradition. Shifting tradition in a desperate appeal to young people indoctrinated by secular education is not the correct way.
The chapter on religious pluralism finally reveals Dr. Johnson’s ambiguous attitude towards her own religion. “To put it simply, the living God is not a Christian. Rather, the incalculable mystery, which the Christian scripture dares to call love is not constrained in loving but freely pours out affection to all and each one.” If all religions were the same, then the battle between Baal and the Hebrew God would have been moot. The first commandment would not have been necessary at all. The entire fuss with the Golden Calf would have been a joke at literal biblical scale.
This is the fundamental problem of academic theologians under the guise of Catholicism today - they confuse Christian theological studies with religious studies. From there they get tainted deeply by secular trends and lose the anchor of their profession. Their “progress” is ultimately towards a Church with no liturgy, no moral theology, no sacraments, but an empty promise of another world. I find it deeply hypocritical and troubling.
While I disagree with Professor Johnson on theology, I found it an unpleasant read not because of those disagreements but because of what she failed to articulate. For example, after many “academic” types of long sentences, she still failed to explain what Liberation Theology meant. In contrast, a web page from Brown University (a progressive institution) laid it out precisely. She circumvented the issue of Marxism, and only brought it up in the middle of the chapter - whereas Liberation Theology is in essence Catholicism plus watered-down Marxism. Failure to admit it upfront just makes the issue harder to understand.
Like many issues of the day, I think we mostly agree with the symptoms. For example, poverty is evil. But the problem is what to do with it. This in part necessitates a distinguishment between relative and absolute poverty. If we start our discussion on absolute poverty (like what Professor Johnson did), but end up with a policy solution to relative poverty (again, like what Professor Johnson did) - then we are not precisely addressing the problem. I understand that theologians need to come up with an opinion in a local ministerial context, but economic policy is unfortunately a separate, equally complicated branch of knowledge that theologians just don’t have adequate training to deal with. Indeed, a great mistake in the modern world is the creep of praxis into theology - whereas the two should be separated for good reasons.
This brings to my discontentment about 20th century theology in general. Karl Rahner’s transcendental theology had some very interesting contributions. But do we need another theology to specifically address the horrors of the Holocaust? It was a great atrocity, but genocides and massacres happened throughout human history - do we really need a novo theology to address a particular suffering or evil? What value does it provide, by having God as a sufferer alongside us? Are there any fundamental insights provided by this argument, other than having some conciliatory value which may be useful in a ministerial context?
Similarly, I am at a loss with the vehement need to change God’s pronoun. The oppression of females in society is a social issue and not a theological issue. What realistic advancements has one made, by changing God’s pronoun to she, or they? When we say Jesus Christ is the incarnation of the female Sophia, aren’t we promoting hearsay? Is it really necessary to meditate the Gospel message in front of a Black, female Jesus? Doesn’t it exactly reflect people’s desire to make God his/her image, and not the reverse? Indeed, when a traditional white male imagery is used, people do not think about gender in God. But when a non-traditional, female imagery is used, people are explicitly invited to think about gender in God. All in all, Professor Johnson repeatedly attacks a theological strawman - the male supremacy and the patriarchal societal order - whereas these should be left out to sociology studies and not theology.
The Jesuits struggled with iconography with local cultures in early modern history. Whereas then the combination of Jesus with a local face had some practical value - cultures back then were segregated and it was hard to communicate a foreign concept independent of its context - today the deliberate changes to iconography only adds utility to a fabricated issue. No - BIPOCs are not deprived of our spiritual experience when we see a “white” Jesus. Spiritual experience is a free GIFT - it is bestowed regardless of the imagery in front of us.
The chapter on black liberation theology exposes the very confusion that modern theologians have when they expand their horizon deeper into sociology and political theory. What exact issues are theologians trying to address, in poetically praising the piety of African American slaves? Have we developed any useful insights to help us understand the nature of God and His Providence, beyond what we have already known through the Book of Jobs? Why did the biblical idea of being a servant of the Lord suddenly become obsolete in front of BIPOCs, while the Gospel was almost exclusively preached to slaves of their era? As contemporary Catholics contemplate the evils of past institutions, how did theologians jump to the conclusion that whiteness is a sin?
Repeatedly preaching the existence of white supremacy falsely attributes a social economic problem to skin color. Walk into a poor, desperate white neighborhood in the Rust Belt - do you read white supremacism as imagined by the coastal elites? Look at the economic realities in Latin America and the vast differences between Chile and Argentina - do you think the Marxist way is the correct way to resolve poverty? Now theologians want to weave these distorted observations of the society into theology - in an attempt to eternalize these faulty conclusions.
Importantly, Marxism’s tainting of contemporary theology negates substantially all the New Testament message. The repeated usage of the word “power” disguises itself as something protective of the disadvantaged but in essence incites everything other than the Gospel Love. By juxtaposing one group of people against another, it creates points of conflict without actually resolving them. What happened to “if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also”? The world becomes the poor versus the rich, women versus men, LGBT versus the non-LGBT, BIPOC versus White - the “oppressed” versus the “non-oppressed”. In these new theologies, one should fight the institutions that create these injustices. But I humbly ask - what Utopia do you think you will create? Isn’t the fundamental Christian message “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” good enough for God’s providence? Alas, the Thomist tradition is concluded as inadequate, but is this new theology the best we can offer as a new generation?
Despite its many shortcomings, the Christian tradition should be by and large a tradition of peace. In a deeply unstable society such as America today, the Church should function to bring people to the core messages of Christianity. The Church should precisely not incite further confrontations. Additionally, the Church should invite young people within the Church’s tradition. Shifting tradition in a desperate appeal to young people indoctrinated by secular education is not the correct way.
The chapter on religious pluralism finally reveals Dr. Johnson’s ambiguous attitude towards her own religion. “To put it simply, the living God is not a Christian. Rather, the incalculable mystery, which the Christian scripture dares to call love is not constrained in loving but freely pours out affection to all and each one.” If all religions were the same, then the battle between Baal and the Hebrew God would have been moot. The first commandment would not have been necessary at all. The entire fuss with the Golden Calf would have been a joke at literal biblical scale.
This is the fundamental problem of academic theologians under the guise of Catholicism today - they confuse Christian theological studies with religious studies. From there they get tainted deeply by secular trends and lose the anchor of their profession. Their “progress” is ultimately towards a Church with no liturgy, no moral theology, no sacraments, but an empty promise of another world. I find it deeply hypocritical and troubling.
January 5, 2022
A friend recommended "any book by Elizabeth A. Johnson," Professor of Theology at Fordham. As a person, not Roman Catholic, who feels out of touch with God but knows God is out there/out here somewhere, I sent for this inviting title. On the jacket was a compelling blurb by Roberto S. Goizueta, Professor of Catholic Theology at Boston College which I quote in full here because it's a good description of a book which one Goodreads reviewer said was "banned by the Catholic church."
"As Elizabeth Johnson notes, Karl Rahner had an abiding concern that much of Christian theology presented a God unworthy of belief. Here Johnson has given us a God truly worthy of our belief, fidelity and love. Every word breathes with the author's deep love of God, the church and the world. Combining her usual theological sophistication with the practical wisdom that comes from a life-long commitment to the life of faith, this is theology as it should be."
What Goizueta says is all true. What my simple mind brought away from the book is summarized thus: God is Love, God is Mystery. Accept the Love. Don't try to solve the Mystery or prove the Existence. God has a vision, not a plan.
It would follow that God's vision comprehended the torture and death of God's child at the hands of humans. Does it also comprehend the torture and death of the biosphere at the same hands?
This book helped me to step away from dry reason and from trying to understand what can't be understood. We are taught it is a grave sin for an individual (or a whole world) to feel abandoned by God or even that God is indifferent. Yet given the hapless reaction of 95% of the nations of the world (and 100% of the have-nations) to accelerating climate breakdown I see only two choices in my arrogant attempt to interpret God's role in what's happening. These are EITHER
"No more rainbow, the fire next time" -- abandonment , OR
"A new heaven and a new earth" -- the transformation of our planet that's coming will cancel out humankind on our now anthropocentric planet. This could be God's loving vision for the cosmos in which our planet is less than a subatomic particle, but on behalf of my descendants I don't like it. On face, it's too close to the thinking of rich evangelistic BAUers awaiting The Rapture. Perhaps that attitude can be countered and defeated by Creation Care. I have to hope so.
"As Elizabeth Johnson notes, Karl Rahner had an abiding concern that much of Christian theology presented a God unworthy of belief. Here Johnson has given us a God truly worthy of our belief, fidelity and love. Every word breathes with the author's deep love of God, the church and the world. Combining her usual theological sophistication with the practical wisdom that comes from a life-long commitment to the life of faith, this is theology as it should be."
What Goizueta says is all true. What my simple mind brought away from the book is summarized thus: God is Love, God is Mystery. Accept the Love. Don't try to solve the Mystery or prove the Existence. God has a vision, not a plan.
It would follow that God's vision comprehended the torture and death of God's child at the hands of humans. Does it also comprehend the torture and death of the biosphere at the same hands?
This book helped me to step away from dry reason and from trying to understand what can't be understood. We are taught it is a grave sin for an individual (or a whole world) to feel abandoned by God or even that God is indifferent. Yet given the hapless reaction of 95% of the nations of the world (and 100% of the have-nations) to accelerating climate breakdown I see only two choices in my arrogant attempt to interpret God's role in what's happening. These are EITHER
"No more rainbow, the fire next time" -- abandonment , OR
"A new heaven and a new earth" -- the transformation of our planet that's coming will cancel out humankind on our now anthropocentric planet. This could be God's loving vision for the cosmos in which our planet is less than a subatomic particle, but on behalf of my descendants I don't like it. On face, it's too close to the thinking of rich evangelistic BAUers awaiting The Rapture. Perhaps that attitude can be countered and defeated by Creation Care. I have to hope so.
March 20, 2019
Beyond parody. Trying to think of some better subtitles for this book:
"Quest for the Living God: An insane person gets a PhD in theology and replaces the Nicene Creed with a few things she overheard in the Fordham theology faculty lounge"?
"Quest for the Living God: 'Catholic' theologian argues that human beings cannot gain knowledge of God through divine revelation, but rather through listening to intersectional minorities talk about their feelings"?
"Quest for the Living God: The 'Spirit of Vatican II' told me that theology is only true if it aligns with the consensus political views of the NYT editorial board"?
"Quest for the Living God: An insane person gets a PhD in theology and replaces the Nicene Creed with a few things she overheard in the Fordham theology faculty lounge"?
"Quest for the Living God: 'Catholic' theologian argues that human beings cannot gain knowledge of God through divine revelation, but rather through listening to intersectional minorities talk about their feelings"?
"Quest for the Living God: The 'Spirit of Vatican II' told me that theology is only true if it aligns with the consensus political views of the NYT editorial board"?
February 21, 2017
Solid, broad, well-explained explorations in theology. Very accessible, with repeated returns back to "why it matters" for an ordinary person trying to live a faithful life.
The bibliographies at the end of each chapter for further reading are practically worth the price of admission themselves.
The bibliographies at the end of each chapter for further reading are practically worth the price of admission themselves.
May 16, 2021
A very solid and very accessible introduction to a bunch of different forms of theology that have developed in the 20th and 21st centuries. Johnson's explanations are pretty much always very, very clear for a lay audience, and she makes sure to include other accessible works in each further reading sections. If you want a starting place for modern Christian theologies, this really should be where you turn. Each section is both brief and manages to get a grasp on the debates at play, and I really can't emphasize those further reading sections enough. I will probably return to this book in the future because it's so useful and accessible.
July 1, 2016
An outstanding review of late 20th - early 21st century Christian theology, this very readable book drew rebukes from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops for Sr. Elizabeth Johnson. Alas, this is more a mark of their knee-jerk reactionary stances than of her scholarship, which is unimpeachable. She covers transcendental, political, liberation, feminist, Black, Latinx, interreligious, and ecological theologies with aplomb and sympathy. This is an excellent primer on current trends in theology for those just getting interested in the field or for those who've only been handed the "classic" texts. Highly accessible but penetrating, Quest for the Living God should appeal to laypeople as well as to working pastors and theology students.
May 16, 2012
Banned by the Catholic Church, this book outlines new territory being explored by recent Christian theologians. Mostly from the Roman Catholic point of view, but mentions some Protestants also. Interesting take on how to continue to value the past while embracing a bigger picture, learning from the worldwide Christian community as well as other faiths, and being creative in an expansive new way of apprehending God.
August 4, 2016
An overview of modern Christian theology, with an emphasis on the Roman Catholic viewpoint. I enjoyed Professor Johnson's writing style and her clear explanations. Written in the early 21st century, this book is highly recommended for anyone with an interest in how the Roman Catholic Church has moved from Vatican II to Pope Francis.
September 14, 2018
This is a well written and interesting look at the various frontiers of theology early in this new millennium. The author displays a significant understanding of a range of theological moves and movements including but not limited to liberation theology, womanist theology, black liberation theology, religious pluralism, Latino/a theology and recent trends re: the Trinity. A rewarding read.
March 29, 2019
Profoundly grateful to have found this book written by a highly educated theologian and Catholic nun during these tremulous times in the Church and world. Difficult to read at times given the academic bent. Chapter devoted to religious pluralism was highly uplifting to me personally.
May 25, 2022
I started off appreciating the gathering together of necessary provocations to an inadequate dominant theology. However, I became more and more annoyed with Johnson as the book wore on. As a defender of the relevance of contemplation and mystical experience for the modern world, I felt that the overuse of the term “mystical” tended toward a generalizing erasure of any genuine and acute mystical experience. The summaries of theological contributions from various marginalized traditions felt… glib, at best. There are deeper histories to many of the “innovations” Johnson discusses that go damningly without mention. This is ultimately a book that might be valuable to those with little exposure to the writing of the saints or any theology outside the catechism, but with a precocious ability to see through the stylistic and rhetorical foibles of Johnson’s summarizing and commentary. I unfortunately found it spiritually deadening to read a book that tries to fit the earth-shattering reality of religious experience into the dishwater conventions of an academic monograph (but again: for children). For once, I am in agreement with the USCCB.
April 15, 2021
Johnson has a broad audience in mind and says her goal with the book “is to enlighten the minds of those who seek understanding about spiritual matters; to encourage those who doubt to keep faith with their questions; to give energetic support to those who work for the good of others, and to provide those who teach or preach in the church with food for thought that they can use to nourish others” (1).
This book highlights some of the lessons learned from discoveries people have made about who God is and how God acts in the world. Each chapter describes the context it comes from, the reasoning behind it, and the challenge it presents to spiritual and practical life. The book features transcendental, political, liberation, feminist, Black, Hispanic, interreligious, and ecological theologies (3).
This book highlights some of the lessons learned from discoveries people have made about who God is and how God acts in the world. Each chapter describes the context it comes from, the reasoning behind it, and the challenge it presents to spiritual and practical life. The book features transcendental, political, liberation, feminist, Black, Hispanic, interreligious, and ecological theologies (3).
October 10, 2021
In the ‘70s, when I was studying for my first magisterial degree, I was introduced to John Cobb’s Living Options in Protestant Theology: A Survey of Methods, a marvelous survey of transitional thought from late 19th to late 20th century concisely expressed but documented in great detail. Over the decades, using this as a quick reference to inspire me to reconsider some of the formidable modern theologians, this volume has been of great use to me. Recently, upon reading Elizabeth A. Johnson’s Quest for the Living God: Mapping Frontiers in the Theology of God, I had a similar experience. Better yet, since Johnson’s emphasis is largely on very late 20th century into 21st century theology, there is very little overlap beyond Karl Barth and Paul Tillich. Where Cobb divided his volume into: Natural Theology, Theological Positivism, and Theological Existentialism, Johnson focuses on issues of: Mystery, Suffering, Liberation, Feminism, Race, Celebration, Pluralism, and Trinitarian Models.
After a brief introduction on the importance of reimagining models of the divine, interaction therewith, and human fulfillment of potential, Johnson plunges into a discussion of the difficulty of communicating non-idolatrous perceptions of the divine and then, summarizes various movements which have endeavored to restructure the dialogue with both believers within and seekers or skeptics without the church so that the questions asked and answers posited can be more relevant to modern life. Noting that some wonder at the value of undergoing such consideration since it is de facto impossible to grasp the incomprehensible, Johnson uses two delightful stories to illustrate the need. First, she reminds us of Augustine’s vision where the early father was walking along the beach and saw a child continually pouring sea water from his bucket into a hole on the beach. Asking the child what he was trying to accomplish, the little one answered that he was trying to put the sea into his hole. When the churchman protested that it was impossible because it wouldn’t fit, the child reveals himself to be an angel and informs Augustine that he can’t fit the concept of Trinity into his mind, either (p. 17). She follows this up with Karl Rahner’s metaphor that our experience of God is like being on a deserted island. We can go into deep water on all sides and be physically engulfed by the ocean, but we cannot engulf the ocean (p. 18). In these stories, Johnson simultaneously underscores the need for and danger of using metaphors to attempt to describe the nature of God. We have to keep similarity and dissimilarity in constant tension (p. 19) if we are willing to dialogue with God in continuing exploration toward God (p. 20). Theology is not abstract thought. “Rather, in jubilation and praise, lamentation and mourning, thanksgiving and petition, crying out and the falling into silence, human beings name God with a symphony of notes.” (p. 21) Of course, though Johnson does not say so, many people agree with the emperor in Amadeus that this symphony of notes is “too many notes.”
I don’t think there are “too many notes” in Johnson’s book. There are points where I believe her apparent universalism ignores Emil Brunner’s incisive dissection of Karl Barth’s “objective” universalism versus “subjective” decision-making (The Christian Doctrine of God, pp. 346-353). I tend to agree with Brunner that both double-predestination and universalism end up making the human decision meaningless. There are points where the emphasis on justice overlooks its etiology in terms of sinfulness and doesn’t adequately express the need for spiritual as well as physical redemption [This seems particularly prevalent in liberation, black liberation, and what she calls “fiesta” theology]. There are points where the embrace of pluralism seems very much turning into mere and irrelevant relativism (and Johnson admits the danger while not, I believe, safeguarding enough against the danger of indistinctiveness and lack of focus).
Despite these misgivings on my part, Johnson has performed a great service in terms of surveying more modern efforts to make God-talk relevant and transformative. Quest for the Living God: Mapping Frontiers in the Theology of God is non-judgmental (at times, too acritical!). That may be a feature, though, since Johnson doesn’t appear to have an axe to grind (or “skin in the game?”) and simply presents positions without thorough analysis. For merely exposing students or readers to positions and issues, that works very well. If I were teaching an introductory course today, I’d use it. In fact, I’ve quoted extensively from this book in teaching about theology in my local church.
That being said, I both liked her summary of the tension in Moltmann’s “suffering God” and didn’t agree with her consensus to Soelle’s critique. I liked: “While his Son is dying on the cross, God the Father suffers too, but not in the same way. The Father suffers the loss of hhis Son, experiencing infinite grief. There is a total separation between them, having lost each other. At the same time, however, never have they been so close. They are united in a deep unity of the will, each willing to do this for the love of the world. As a result, the Holy Spirit who is love, the Spirit of their mutual love, flows out into the broken, sinful world.” (p. 61) One cannot quite comprehend the fullness of this mystery—quantum entanglement might suggest a partial metaphor—but the tension is well-expressed and is part of what makes Moltmann’s work so important.
Yet, two pages later, she prepares to summarize the argument of Dorothee Soelle in stating that this mutually-agreed suffering is a one-sided, sadistic view of what happened in the saving event. “This construal of the cross blames the Father for what in fact was done to Jesus by the history of human injustice.” (p. 63) And Johnson seems to resonate with Soelle’s perception that traditions about God’s omnipotence are distortions that teach humans to idolize power, “whose prime act is to subjugate, whose greatest fear is independence.” (p. 63) That shift from Moltmann to Soelle essentially gave me whiplash.
On a more positive note, having read my share of Karl Rahner’s works, I was delighted with the positive treatment of Rahner’s approach to the divine through human insight while, at the same time, reserving a suitable place for the transcendent and mysterious. I loved the prayer from Rahner hat Johnson quoted: “Whenever I think of Your Infinity, I am wracked with anxiety wondering how you are disposed to me. …You must adapt Your word to my smallness, so that it can enter into this tiny dwelling of my finiteness—the only dwelling in which I can live—without destroying it.” (quoted on p. 39)
And, while I think that the discussions on liberation theology and black theology tended to focus so much on earthly justice without truly uncovering the distinctive claims of Christ with eternal implications, there were constant delights in the book. For example, it had never registered to me about the Hispanic version of The Shepherd’s Play, la pastorela, with its medieval roots being so significant as providing “identity” to the community (p. 147). I laughed at Walter Kasper’s observation that pneumatology (study of the Holy Spirit) is the Cinderella of trinitarian studies (p. 182).
Fortunately, after reciting Catharine LaCugna’s diatribe about an “…abstract, complex, literal, and oppressive trinitarian theology…” (p. 209), Johnson calls the reader back around to a basic point made by John Calvin that ignoring the doctrine of the Trinity leaves “…only the bare and empty name of God flitting about in our brains.” (quoted on p. 209) In fact, Johnson offers a great summary section on trinitarian ideas on pp. 219-222 where she offers the epitome of 17 different theologians.
Quest for the Living God is not a substitute for volumes like the Cobb work with which I started this review-summary; it is a supplement, and a very useful one at that.
After a brief introduction on the importance of reimagining models of the divine, interaction therewith, and human fulfillment of potential, Johnson plunges into a discussion of the difficulty of communicating non-idolatrous perceptions of the divine and then, summarizes various movements which have endeavored to restructure the dialogue with both believers within and seekers or skeptics without the church so that the questions asked and answers posited can be more relevant to modern life. Noting that some wonder at the value of undergoing such consideration since it is de facto impossible to grasp the incomprehensible, Johnson uses two delightful stories to illustrate the need. First, she reminds us of Augustine’s vision where the early father was walking along the beach and saw a child continually pouring sea water from his bucket into a hole on the beach. Asking the child what he was trying to accomplish, the little one answered that he was trying to put the sea into his hole. When the churchman protested that it was impossible because it wouldn’t fit, the child reveals himself to be an angel and informs Augustine that he can’t fit the concept of Trinity into his mind, either (p. 17). She follows this up with Karl Rahner’s metaphor that our experience of God is like being on a deserted island. We can go into deep water on all sides and be physically engulfed by the ocean, but we cannot engulf the ocean (p. 18). In these stories, Johnson simultaneously underscores the need for and danger of using metaphors to attempt to describe the nature of God. We have to keep similarity and dissimilarity in constant tension (p. 19) if we are willing to dialogue with God in continuing exploration toward God (p. 20). Theology is not abstract thought. “Rather, in jubilation and praise, lamentation and mourning, thanksgiving and petition, crying out and the falling into silence, human beings name God with a symphony of notes.” (p. 21) Of course, though Johnson does not say so, many people agree with the emperor in Amadeus that this symphony of notes is “too many notes.”
I don’t think there are “too many notes” in Johnson’s book. There are points where I believe her apparent universalism ignores Emil Brunner’s incisive dissection of Karl Barth’s “objective” universalism versus “subjective” decision-making (The Christian Doctrine of God, pp. 346-353). I tend to agree with Brunner that both double-predestination and universalism end up making the human decision meaningless. There are points where the emphasis on justice overlooks its etiology in terms of sinfulness and doesn’t adequately express the need for spiritual as well as physical redemption [This seems particularly prevalent in liberation, black liberation, and what she calls “fiesta” theology]. There are points where the embrace of pluralism seems very much turning into mere and irrelevant relativism (and Johnson admits the danger while not, I believe, safeguarding enough against the danger of indistinctiveness and lack of focus).
Despite these misgivings on my part, Johnson has performed a great service in terms of surveying more modern efforts to make God-talk relevant and transformative. Quest for the Living God: Mapping Frontiers in the Theology of God is non-judgmental (at times, too acritical!). That may be a feature, though, since Johnson doesn’t appear to have an axe to grind (or “skin in the game?”) and simply presents positions without thorough analysis. For merely exposing students or readers to positions and issues, that works very well. If I were teaching an introductory course today, I’d use it. In fact, I’ve quoted extensively from this book in teaching about theology in my local church.
That being said, I both liked her summary of the tension in Moltmann’s “suffering God” and didn’t agree with her consensus to Soelle’s critique. I liked: “While his Son is dying on the cross, God the Father suffers too, but not in the same way. The Father suffers the loss of hhis Son, experiencing infinite grief. There is a total separation between them, having lost each other. At the same time, however, never have they been so close. They are united in a deep unity of the will, each willing to do this for the love of the world. As a result, the Holy Spirit who is love, the Spirit of their mutual love, flows out into the broken, sinful world.” (p. 61) One cannot quite comprehend the fullness of this mystery—quantum entanglement might suggest a partial metaphor—but the tension is well-expressed and is part of what makes Moltmann’s work so important.
Yet, two pages later, she prepares to summarize the argument of Dorothee Soelle in stating that this mutually-agreed suffering is a one-sided, sadistic view of what happened in the saving event. “This construal of the cross blames the Father for what in fact was done to Jesus by the history of human injustice.” (p. 63) And Johnson seems to resonate with Soelle’s perception that traditions about God’s omnipotence are distortions that teach humans to idolize power, “whose prime act is to subjugate, whose greatest fear is independence.” (p. 63) That shift from Moltmann to Soelle essentially gave me whiplash.
On a more positive note, having read my share of Karl Rahner’s works, I was delighted with the positive treatment of Rahner’s approach to the divine through human insight while, at the same time, reserving a suitable place for the transcendent and mysterious. I loved the prayer from Rahner hat Johnson quoted: “Whenever I think of Your Infinity, I am wracked with anxiety wondering how you are disposed to me. …You must adapt Your word to my smallness, so that it can enter into this tiny dwelling of my finiteness—the only dwelling in which I can live—without destroying it.” (quoted on p. 39)
And, while I think that the discussions on liberation theology and black theology tended to focus so much on earthly justice without truly uncovering the distinctive claims of Christ with eternal implications, there were constant delights in the book. For example, it had never registered to me about the Hispanic version of The Shepherd’s Play, la pastorela, with its medieval roots being so significant as providing “identity” to the community (p. 147). I laughed at Walter Kasper’s observation that pneumatology (study of the Holy Spirit) is the Cinderella of trinitarian studies (p. 182).
Fortunately, after reciting Catharine LaCugna’s diatribe about an “…abstract, complex, literal, and oppressive trinitarian theology…” (p. 209), Johnson calls the reader back around to a basic point made by John Calvin that ignoring the doctrine of the Trinity leaves “…only the bare and empty name of God flitting about in our brains.” (quoted on p. 209) In fact, Johnson offers a great summary section on trinitarian ideas on pp. 219-222 where she offers the epitome of 17 different theologians.
Quest for the Living God is not a substitute for volumes like the Cobb work with which I started this review-summary; it is a supplement, and a very useful one at that.
December 27, 2020
This book has provided me with new frameworks for engaging in theological reflection. Johnson's work is accessible and understandable to the theologically interested without too much of a need to introduce a plethora of unfamiliar concepts first. I am drawn to the ways that she is firmly grounded in her tradition yet also calls us to step beyond it into new, thoughtful ways of understanding God. Her ability to set traditions and theologies in dialogue with one another that may not always see the value in each other is compelling. This commitment to finding common ground extends beyond theological questions to conversations about the natural world in her work. She seems to not be threatened by differences, but rather curious to discover how God is at work everywhere. For these reasons, I perceive her work to be immensely relevant for those who ask deep questions about faith and the world around them.
April 1, 2020
What a good book!! I feel... so much better about God. So exhilarated. So in love. So free from overwhelm and annoyance. Angry at the object we've made the Holy One into, at the deadness and limitedness of our metaphors in the liturgy, but nevertheless encouraged.
I am the bride, and God is my bridegroom! God is the woman looking for her lost coin (Luke 15:8-10), and she found me! God is not actually a thing, but being itself! God seeks me and I seek God, and we encounter each other again, and again, all the more splendidly. What a great starting place for considering all that "God" is, all that "God" has been, and all that we can be.
I am the bride, and God is my bridegroom! God is the woman looking for her lost coin (Luke 15:8-10), and she found me! God is not actually a thing, but being itself! God seeks me and I seek God, and we encounter each other again, and again, all the more splendidly. What a great starting place for considering all that "God" is, all that "God" has been, and all that we can be.
August 8, 2021
This book is a wonderful example of prophetic theology at its best! Challenging, clear, continually insightful, thoughtful, always assertive without ever becoming demeaning, constructive, critical yet respectful. If you're wondering what's going on in the theological world of contemporary Christian thought, this book will place you squarely in the know. Even if you don't agree with all of Sr. Johnson's perspectives, I don't think you'll regret having been exposed to her articulate quest for the living God.
March 27, 2018
Though not a big book, Johnson captures so many facets of what we believe God to be. She explores liberation theology, ecological theology and the Trinity as Trinity. She explores how peoples of different backgrounds & how they view God in light of who they are. Johnson devotes a chapter to the feminine God - how to see the Father as the Mother. This book is so full of insight I am putting it in a special section in my library, as i intend to go back to it many, many times. A definite MUST-READ for anyone trying to understand GOD just a little better
June 29, 2019
Very well written book with different chapters speaking to the various thoughts of God in contemporary society - the living God. My favorite quote which Ms. Johnson quoted from another source is: "God is not two white men and a bird."
October 5, 2009
One of catholicism's leading women theolgians presents a very readable book on the nature of God. Written in terms that lay people can understand and appreciate.
January 7, 2013
One of the best theological works I've ever read. I particularly liked all the practical implications for the spiritual life.
May 28, 2014
QUEST FOR THE LIVING GOD
Mapping Frontiers in the Theology of God
Elizabeth A. Johnson, continuum, NY, London. 2007. Xiii, 234.
In general, I found in the first 2 chapters insights with which I could believe. I read the book before I read the criticisms of the bishops. Thereafter, much of what I read or saw or felt was the same experience that I had in the period from 1967 through the 1970’s, words that were much the same as mine but meant something else. Those who spoke them (Tony Valla, etc.) left the Society of Jesus. Basically, my general criticisms are in line with the bishops’ comments.
Sister Johnson in the chapters following the first two chapters was writing sociological theology, some of it self-admittedly “political theology,” as she herself put it. Those later chapters were a buildup from sociology to her brand of theology. The chapters read like the break-up of jurisprudence into ideological sub-categories.
Obviously, I start from the point-of-view that Jesus did not come to be a political messiah. Her theology heads him in that direction, the living God of present politics.
3. “This book shares the fruit of many such theological labors carried out in different places amid the unspeakable brutality, bewilderment, and blessed achievements of recent history. … Each succeeding chapter [after the first] hen presents a discrete idea of God. To clarify the meaning of this insight, each chapter describes the context in which it has arisen, the reasoning that explores and explains it, and the challenge to spiritual and practical life that it entails. Featured re transcendental, political, liberation, feminist black, Hispanic, interreligious, and ecological theologies, ending with the particular Christian belief in the one God as triune.”
pp. 14-22. Xeroxed. Analysis I can basically agree with, with some caveats.
p. 15. Modern theism is a product of rationalist philosophy as well as of the Enlightenment, I suppose it should be pointed out that the Enlightenment was the product of the Deists to a great extent, which posited a watchmaker God. Perhaps a greater danger to faith is civic religion, which was probably a natural outgrowth of the separation of church and state and the Protestant denominations in non-Catholic countries. I suspect that Catholic countries had their own “moderating” influences.
pp. 17 and following
p. 17. For someone who is ineffable, we do a lot of uttering about God. Cf.
“We firmly believe and simply confess that there is only one true God, eternal and immeasurable, almighty, unchangeable, incomprehensible and ineffable, Father, Son and holy Spirit, three persons but one absolutely simple essence, substance or nature” IV Lateran Council, (1215), 1 Profession of Faith. !!! DS 800 quoted in 202 of Catechism of Catholic Church.
pp. 18-19. Good discussion of analogy, negative theology, metaphor.
pp. 32-37. Xeroxed.
pp. 32-33. Transcendental philosophy. An assumption that we do “transcend,” based on the dynamic nature of human experience.
pp. 34-35. “This orientation is what constitutes us as spiritual subjects, or persons, properly so called.” NOTE I still think that Boethius in saying a person is the individual substance of a rational nature has something to say because, in line with Aristotle, we are beings who stand “on our own.” And so does God. We are “substantial.”
pp. 42-45. Xeroxed.
p. 42. “In the neo-scholastic theology dominant at mid-twentieth century, “mystery” stood for matters that ordinary reason found difficult to understand.” What about impossible to understand for that is also a viable meaning.” I think she is setting up a straw horse at the beginning of the next page (plural, propositional, provisional).
p. 43. “The modern world’s contact with multiple cultures in addition to its own internal pluralism makes this exclusivist view of God’s salvific purpose, meant only for certain right-thinking and observant people, increasingly/ untenable.”
I think she is setting up a straw horse again. There is truth in the assertion but it was not an absolute. I cannot remember being taught that way, although I have known Catholics who thought that way.
pp. 49-53. Xeroxed.
p. 51. “THE FAILURE OF THEODICY. … Traditional theology is virtually unanimous in maintaining that God does not will suffering directly. Rather, having created a world with its own natural laws, a world, moreover, where human beings have free will, God allows or permits disaster to happen.”
Again, I think that the author is setting up a straw horse. When I took “theodicy,” it was called natural theology. The real point is that God did not have to create but if he did, what he created was and is not God. Therefore, limitation is part of the created – it what is created is in time, in history and free, there is high risk for God, another but stronger way of saying that God “allows or permits disaster to happen.”
Cf. the problem of the so-called condemnation of Aquinas by Bishop Stephen Tempier of Paris. It seems to me the problem was much the same as adumbrated by Sister Johnson. See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/con... Radical Aristotelianism v traditional theology.
pp. 55-56. “In crafting an approach to theology that would deal with massive public suffering and the middle-class attempt to ignore it, the young Germans began to use the term “political theology,” from the Greek word polis, meaning city. This is not theology done in direct connection with political parties or movements, lobbies or governments, as the name might suggest. Rather, it is theology that seeks to connect speech about God with the polis, the city, the public good of massive numbers of people, living and dead. Political theology as they developed it is wary of a privatized type of religion that focuses on an individual’s religious experience and morality alone. Such a narrow view contributed to the failure of the churches to vigorously/ oppose Hitler, allowing a complacency that enabled faith to be bound up with an unjust social order. Expressing the intent to give religion a public face, political theology crafts a broader view, attempting to hold belief in God accountable in the public arena.”
I suspect early Christians were not part of the political order in any strong way. In the West, Christianity became the cultural norm, which encompassed both individual and society. In modernity, I think Sister Johnson may be right in that theindividualism of the Enlightenment affected Christian belief. But cf. Jacob Talmon, The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy and Political Messianism: The Romantic Phase.
pp. 62-69. Xeroxed.
pp. 62-64. I do not think that Sister Johnson says where she stands on the suffering of God. But it seems her inclination is to side Soelle and Moltmann on having God suffer ontologically, within himself, this despite her notion of ineffability with regard to God.
p. 65 She does acknowledge Metz’ position in which he does not believe that “the symbol of a suffering God would help. This symbol, he thinks, offers too easy an answer. Among other problems, it eternalizes suffering by placing it in God; it gives suffering a certain splendor…”
I agree with Sister Johnson that there is no “appropriate symbol, no tidy answer.” And she is obviously correct in saying that “There is no positive meaning in unjust radical suffering that destroys persons.” P. 66 bottom. It seems to me that the problem is that even for God, creation is high risk because not control our freedom, or matter, for that matter. So if God is going to create a creature that is material, placed in time and history, there will perforce be the possibility of suffering, indeed the likelihood.
pp. 62-69. I think she should have given at least a nod to Weinandy’s, “Does God Suffer?,” granted that he is a conservative who wrote some of the strictures against here. Cf. “When the Magisterium Intervenes.”
pp. 162-163 Xeroxed
“To put it simply, the living God is not a Christian.” Right but does the living God work “through Christ our Lord.”
pp. 166-167 Xeroxed
p. 167 “Abe suggests that this is not just a historical statement [Phil, emptied himself] but refers to the very nature of Ultimate Reality. TheMessiah is self-emptying, self-abnegating, andthis belongs to the very nature of God, who is love.” Somehow or other, the attempt to accommodate to Buddhist phraseology seems to deny substance, reality to God.
p. 197 Xeroxed.
p. 197 Vision is a much better word than plan, which locks God into time as god. Vision – Providence.
pp. 202-224 Xeroxed. I think Sister Johnson comes close to modalism, or whatever term one can use to express the notion that there is no real Threeness in God.
Mapping Frontiers in the Theology of God
Elizabeth A. Johnson, continuum, NY, London. 2007. Xiii, 234.
In general, I found in the first 2 chapters insights with which I could believe. I read the book before I read the criticisms of the bishops. Thereafter, much of what I read or saw or felt was the same experience that I had in the period from 1967 through the 1970’s, words that were much the same as mine but meant something else. Those who spoke them (Tony Valla, etc.) left the Society of Jesus. Basically, my general criticisms are in line with the bishops’ comments.
Sister Johnson in the chapters following the first two chapters was writing sociological theology, some of it self-admittedly “political theology,” as she herself put it. Those later chapters were a buildup from sociology to her brand of theology. The chapters read like the break-up of jurisprudence into ideological sub-categories.
Obviously, I start from the point-of-view that Jesus did not come to be a political messiah. Her theology heads him in that direction, the living God of present politics.
3. “This book shares the fruit of many such theological labors carried out in different places amid the unspeakable brutality, bewilderment, and blessed achievements of recent history. … Each succeeding chapter [after the first] hen presents a discrete idea of God. To clarify the meaning of this insight, each chapter describes the context in which it has arisen, the reasoning that explores and explains it, and the challenge to spiritual and practical life that it entails. Featured re transcendental, political, liberation, feminist black, Hispanic, interreligious, and ecological theologies, ending with the particular Christian belief in the one God as triune.”
pp. 14-22. Xeroxed. Analysis I can basically agree with, with some caveats.
p. 15. Modern theism is a product of rationalist philosophy as well as of the Enlightenment, I suppose it should be pointed out that the Enlightenment was the product of the Deists to a great extent, which posited a watchmaker God. Perhaps a greater danger to faith is civic religion, which was probably a natural outgrowth of the separation of church and state and the Protestant denominations in non-Catholic countries. I suspect that Catholic countries had their own “moderating” influences.
pp. 17 and following
p. 17. For someone who is ineffable, we do a lot of uttering about God. Cf.
“We firmly believe and simply confess that there is only one true God, eternal and immeasurable, almighty, unchangeable, incomprehensible and ineffable, Father, Son and holy Spirit, three persons but one absolutely simple essence, substance or nature” IV Lateran Council, (1215), 1 Profession of Faith. !!! DS 800 quoted in 202 of Catechism of Catholic Church.
pp. 18-19. Good discussion of analogy, negative theology, metaphor.
pp. 32-37. Xeroxed.
pp. 32-33. Transcendental philosophy. An assumption that we do “transcend,” based on the dynamic nature of human experience.
pp. 34-35. “This orientation is what constitutes us as spiritual subjects, or persons, properly so called.” NOTE I still think that Boethius in saying a person is the individual substance of a rational nature has something to say because, in line with Aristotle, we are beings who stand “on our own.” And so does God. We are “substantial.”
pp. 42-45. Xeroxed.
p. 42. “In the neo-scholastic theology dominant at mid-twentieth century, “mystery” stood for matters that ordinary reason found difficult to understand.” What about impossible to understand for that is also a viable meaning.” I think she is setting up a straw horse at the beginning of the next page (plural, propositional, provisional).
p. 43. “The modern world’s contact with multiple cultures in addition to its own internal pluralism makes this exclusivist view of God’s salvific purpose, meant only for certain right-thinking and observant people, increasingly/ untenable.”
I think she is setting up a straw horse again. There is truth in the assertion but it was not an absolute. I cannot remember being taught that way, although I have known Catholics who thought that way.
pp. 49-53. Xeroxed.
p. 51. “THE FAILURE OF THEODICY. … Traditional theology is virtually unanimous in maintaining that God does not will suffering directly. Rather, having created a world with its own natural laws, a world, moreover, where human beings have free will, God allows or permits disaster to happen.”
Again, I think that the author is setting up a straw horse. When I took “theodicy,” it was called natural theology. The real point is that God did not have to create but if he did, what he created was and is not God. Therefore, limitation is part of the created – it what is created is in time, in history and free, there is high risk for God, another but stronger way of saying that God “allows or permits disaster to happen.”
Cf. the problem of the so-called condemnation of Aquinas by Bishop Stephen Tempier of Paris. It seems to me the problem was much the same as adumbrated by Sister Johnson. See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/con... Radical Aristotelianism v traditional theology.
pp. 55-56. “In crafting an approach to theology that would deal with massive public suffering and the middle-class attempt to ignore it, the young Germans began to use the term “political theology,” from the Greek word polis, meaning city. This is not theology done in direct connection with political parties or movements, lobbies or governments, as the name might suggest. Rather, it is theology that seeks to connect speech about God with the polis, the city, the public good of massive numbers of people, living and dead. Political theology as they developed it is wary of a privatized type of religion that focuses on an individual’s religious experience and morality alone. Such a narrow view contributed to the failure of the churches to vigorously/ oppose Hitler, allowing a complacency that enabled faith to be bound up with an unjust social order. Expressing the intent to give religion a public face, political theology crafts a broader view, attempting to hold belief in God accountable in the public arena.”
I suspect early Christians were not part of the political order in any strong way. In the West, Christianity became the cultural norm, which encompassed both individual and society. In modernity, I think Sister Johnson may be right in that theindividualism of the Enlightenment affected Christian belief. But cf. Jacob Talmon, The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy and Political Messianism: The Romantic Phase.
pp. 62-69. Xeroxed.
pp. 62-64. I do not think that Sister Johnson says where she stands on the suffering of God. But it seems her inclination is to side Soelle and Moltmann on having God suffer ontologically, within himself, this despite her notion of ineffability with regard to God.
p. 65 She does acknowledge Metz’ position in which he does not believe that “the symbol of a suffering God would help. This symbol, he thinks, offers too easy an answer. Among other problems, it eternalizes suffering by placing it in God; it gives suffering a certain splendor…”
I agree with Sister Johnson that there is no “appropriate symbol, no tidy answer.” And she is obviously correct in saying that “There is no positive meaning in unjust radical suffering that destroys persons.” P. 66 bottom. It seems to me that the problem is that even for God, creation is high risk because not control our freedom, or matter, for that matter. So if God is going to create a creature that is material, placed in time and history, there will perforce be the possibility of suffering, indeed the likelihood.
pp. 62-69. I think she should have given at least a nod to Weinandy’s, “Does God Suffer?,” granted that he is a conservative who wrote some of the strictures against here. Cf. “When the Magisterium Intervenes.”
pp. 162-163 Xeroxed
“To put it simply, the living God is not a Christian.” Right but does the living God work “through Christ our Lord.”
pp. 166-167 Xeroxed
p. 167 “Abe suggests that this is not just a historical statement [Phil, emptied himself] but refers to the very nature of Ultimate Reality. TheMessiah is self-emptying, self-abnegating, andthis belongs to the very nature of God, who is love.” Somehow or other, the attempt to accommodate to Buddhist phraseology seems to deny substance, reality to God.
p. 197 Xeroxed.
p. 197 Vision is a much better word than plan, which locks God into time as god. Vision – Providence.
pp. 202-224 Xeroxed. I think Sister Johnson comes close to modalism, or whatever term one can use to express the notion that there is no real Threeness in God.
November 30, 2022
This is one of the most stimulating books I've read for a long time! It is a book about God, about the living God &, as Elizabeth Johnson indicates in the subtitle: "Mapping Frontiers in the Theology of God. She explores the tremendous leaps ahead which theologians from all denominations & from all over the world have made, up to at least 2007. As one might guess, given the topic itself, this isn't always an easy read. However, it is surely worth setting one's own preconceived notions on a shelf for the time being & opening one's mind to striking new possibilities.
In the Epilogue Johnson gives a good summary of the book. In fact, it might be a good idea for readers to take a look at the Epilogue first to get an overall grasp of the "mapped frontier". I unabashedly include some helpful quotes here: "...This book has been mapping frontiers where insights into the living God are flaring forth in our day as a result of faith's encounter with changing, life-or-death circumstances. [Multiply that by 15 years!]...In each case we have been offered a set of images or catchwords, substantiated by biblical exegesis, historical traditions, or church teaching and buttressed bu cogent lines of reasoning, under which the totality of the experience of God is summed up and comes toward us anew. Rather than discussing simply one aspect of the divine, each particular approach intends and amplifies the meaning of the whole, like different gateways opening into the one garden. Together these gateways offer us a glimpse of the living God at once ineffable, vulnerable, liberating, relational, justice-loving, beautiful, generous, cherishing, dynamic, and adventurous; at once creative, redemptive, and embracing; in a word, Love...All grasp that a doctrine of the living God that is not opposed to evil in the concrete is unorthodox, is, in fact, a fantasy, not consistent with divine glory...Buoyed by hope, we can begin to imagine the world anew and commit our energies in responsible, healing, and liberating action...The fact that voices from around the world, including many from the periphery of established centers of power, are contributing to the idea of God indicates the end of the Constantinian era and the dawning of a truly global Christianity..."
In the Epilogue Johnson gives a good summary of the book. In fact, it might be a good idea for readers to take a look at the Epilogue first to get an overall grasp of the "mapped frontier". I unabashedly include some helpful quotes here: "...This book has been mapping frontiers where insights into the living God are flaring forth in our day as a result of faith's encounter with changing, life-or-death circumstances. [Multiply that by 15 years!]...In each case we have been offered a set of images or catchwords, substantiated by biblical exegesis, historical traditions, or church teaching and buttressed bu cogent lines of reasoning, under which the totality of the experience of God is summed up and comes toward us anew. Rather than discussing simply one aspect of the divine, each particular approach intends and amplifies the meaning of the whole, like different gateways opening into the one garden. Together these gateways offer us a glimpse of the living God at once ineffable, vulnerable, liberating, relational, justice-loving, beautiful, generous, cherishing, dynamic, and adventurous; at once creative, redemptive, and embracing; in a word, Love...All grasp that a doctrine of the living God that is not opposed to evil in the concrete is unorthodox, is, in fact, a fantasy, not consistent with divine glory...Buoyed by hope, we can begin to imagine the world anew and commit our energies in responsible, healing, and liberating action...The fact that voices from around the world, including many from the periphery of established centers of power, are contributing to the idea of God indicates the end of the Constantinian era and the dawning of a truly global Christianity..."
May 4, 2023
i don't really like elizabeth johnson and i don't think her ideas are compelling or persuasive, although i am amused that when she was feuding with the united states conference of catholic bishops, they wrote a statement alleging that her book goes against catholic teaching and her response was basically "i didn't say any of those things" but she fully did say those things. theologians make your arguments clear and say what you mean challenge, level impossible. i would maybe recommend this book to liberal/progressive christians, but no one else.
February 15, 2023
I found this more readable and a bit less dense than She Who Is: The Mystery of God in Feminist Theological Discourse. This was a really helpful theological tour and an inspiring call to put aside our idols of God and embrace a Living God active in every corner of the world.
May 3, 2018
God as the Living Symbol
Johnson offers a glimpse into the history of Christian theology. But the look back is inspired by the contemporary need to understand what (or Who) we can reasonably believe God to be today. I particularly appreciated her discussion of the Trinity - the very heart and soul of what Christianity has understood to be the saving work of God.
Johnson offers a glimpse into the history of Christian theology. But the look back is inspired by the contemporary need to understand what (or Who) we can reasonably believe God to be today. I particularly appreciated her discussion of the Trinity - the very heart and soul of what Christianity has understood to be the saving work of God.
March 29, 2018
I'm not a theologian, so I struggled to understand everything Elizabeth Johnson is talking about. But I'm glad I read it.
July 3, 2018
An essential guide to the way theology has developed and deepened through the 20th and into the 21st Century. Excellent book that is accessible and well written.
August 10, 2022
Awful. So far away from what her own Church teaches. This woman is rewriting crap theology, and slapping a new cover on it.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 64 reviews