Modern Theism, etc., Re: Sister Elizabeth A. Johnson

[StAnastasia]

“Sr. Johnson states correctly that God can, at times, be msrepresented as an arrogant monarch Who acts in a tyranical and dictatorial fashion. However, traditional Catholic teaching does not do this.”

Elizabeth Johnson agrees that Catholic teaching ideally does not do this. What she argues is that distortions of Catholic teaching have in the past led to some very bad actions, such as “Jewish people killed during the Crusades, women burned as witches by the Inquisition, African slaves held in bondage in the Americas with church approval and participation. These and other examples make clear that the exercise of authority in the traditional name of God has not always been beneficial.”

From page 5. “Sr. Johnson is correct that some notions of God do wrongly portray Him as as a ‘distant lordly lawgiver’ Who ‘stands at the summit of hierarchical power, reinforcing structures of authority in society, church, and family.’ This may be the view of ‘modern theism,’ but it is not the view of traditional Church teaching.”

Sister Johnson responds: “As the Statement notes, Quest rightly does not think modern theism represents classical Christian theology. The Statement also agrees with Quest that when the prevailing view of God resulting from modern theism presents a distant lawgiver who “stands at the summit of hierarchical power, reinforcing structures of authority in society, church, and family,” it is in need of reform. The book’s consistent appeal to scripture and theological tradition, however, contradicts the Statement’s judgment that I think modern theism is identical with the traditional Catholic understanding of God. Modern theism is the theology of one historical period. I offer, then, this observation. The committee’s Statement conflates faith with theology. More specifically, it mistakenly attributes to Quest an equating of faith with a theological pattern known in the literature as modern theism. In doing so, it misreads at the outset what my book is about. It takes criticism of one particular school of thought - modern theism - as if it were a criticism of the ancient and medieval forms of faith, which it is not. Consequently, it attributes nefarious intent to the author. And it employs this error throughout the rest of its reading of the book.”

In other words, the bishops’ distortion of what Sister Johnson wrote sadly promotes their misunderstanding of her work.

 

[Dale_M]

The* Quest for the Living God* is so popular that it is sold out and I now have to wait for the paperback edition.

I realize you do not want to order online, however for those who do, the hardback edition is still available. Both Amazon.com and ContinuumBooks.com (the publisher) show that it is in stock.

 

[nordskoven]

Syncretism means gorging on everything from the buffet of theology. Politically correcting means purging those items demonized by the censor, like vegans condemning meat. For Johnson, leftist leftovers are in; and European theology and “naive” derivatives are out. Quest is Binge & Purge Theology, not unlike the lucrative occult theology of Harry Potter. A whole spectrum of cutesy darkness is poetically catalogued, while ugly satanism is marginalized.

Sanitized Beatles-style Hinduism ignored the elitist caste system and human sacrifice; ignored the “karma” anti-grace that left the starving to die. Cat Stephens-style sanitized Islam apologized for 9-11 genocide while mainstream Muslims danced in the streets. Joan Baez sang of Marxist Che Guevara, overlooking the millions slain by state-sponsored Marxist atheism that inspired Vatican-condemned liberation theology. Cognitive dissonance is the utopia wherein resides the nimble exploiters of pop cultus and culture. I eagerly await the “Quest” album. Insult my character freely; don’t insult my intelligence.

 

[grannymh]

Sister Johnson responds: “As the Statement notes, Quest rightly does not think modern theism represents classical Christian theology. The Statement also agrees with Quest that when the prevailing view of God resulting from modern theism presents a distant lawgiver who “stands at the summit of hierarchical power, reinforcing structures of authority in society, church, and family,” it is in need of reform. The book’s consistent appeal to scripture and theological tradition, however, contradicts the Statement’s judgment that I think modern theism is identical with the traditional Catholic understanding of God. Modern theism is the theology of one historical period. I offer, then, this observation. The committee’s Statement conflates faith with theology. More specifically, it mistakenly attributes to Quest an equating of faith with a theological pattern known in the literature as modern theism. In doing so, it misreads at the outset what my book is about. It takes criticism of one particular school of thought - modern theism - as if it were a criticism of the ancient and medieval forms of faith, which it is not. Consequently, it attributes nefarious intent to the author. And it employs this error throughout the rest of its reading of the book.”

In other words, the bishops’ distortion of what Sister Johnson wrote sadly promotes their misunderstanding of her work.

Emphasis mine.

I’m intersted in the reform which the author is proposing.

 

[StAnastasia]

I’m intersted in the reform which the author is proposing.

Where did you see something about “reform”?

 

[StAnastasia]

I’m intersted in the reform which the author is proposing.

Check out the bishops’ critique, as they agree with Dr. Johnson about the need for reform: "The Statement also agrees with Quest that when the prevailing view of God resulting from modern theism presents a distant lawgiver who “stands at the summit of hierarchical power, reinforcing structures of authority in society, church, and family,” it is in need of reform. "

 

[grannymh]

Check out the bishops’ critique, as they agree with Dr. Johnson about the need for reform: "The Statement also agrees with Quest that when the prevailing view of God resulting from modern theism presents a distant lawgiver who “stands at the summit of hierarchical power, reinforcing structures of authority in society, church, and family,” it is in need of reform. "

I am interested in Sr. Johnson’s proposals for reform.

Back in 1983, the Inclusive-Language Lectionary was introduced by the National Council of Churches as a kind of first step of reform. In 1993, Elizabeth Achtemeier commented in Christianity Today: “While inclusive lanuage for God is less hotly debated in evangelical churches, the issue has wide implications and relevance for all Christians.”

Perhaps I should put my interest in Catholic reform into a question? Did Sr. Johnson’s book make any suggestions or refer to other people’s suggestions for the “reform” that apparently was needed?

 

[StAnastasia]

Perhaps I should put my interest in Catholic reform into a question? Did Sr. Johnson’s book make any suggestions or refer to other people’s suggestions for the “reform” that apparently was needed?

Not that I’ve read. She is a theologian, not a reformer.

 

[grannymh]

Not that I’ve read. She is a theologian, not a reformer.

I will wait until I study some more before replying to the reform concept. But as ordinary folk, I wonder what “mapping frontiers in the theology of God” refers to.

 

[nordskoven]

MULIERIS DIGNITATEM excerpt:

“We may quote here some characteristic passages from the prophet *Isaiah: “But Zion said, ‘The Lord has forsaken me, my Lord has forgotten me’. ‘Can a woman forget *her sucking child, that she should have no compassion on the son of her womb? Even these may forget, yet I will *not *forget you’”. (49:14-15). And elsewhere: “As one whom his *mother *comforts, so will I comfort you; you shall be comforted in Jerusalem” (66: 13). In the Psalms too God is compared to a caring mother: “Like a child quieted at its mother’s breast; like a child that is quieted is my soul. O Israel, hope in the Lord”. *(Ps *131:2-3). In various passages the love of God who cares for his people is shown to be like that of a mother: thus, like a mother God “has carried” humanity, and in particular, his Chosen People, within his own womb; he has given birth to it in travail, has nourished and comforted it (cf. Is 42:14; 46: 3-4). In many passages God’s love is presented as the “masculine” love of the bridegroom and father (cf. *Hosea *11:1-4; *Jer *3:4-19), but also sometimes as the “feminine” love of a mother.”

*Johnson is setting up a straw man “mean god” based, not on the totality of our understanding about God, but on pop culture’s rebellion against any authority: divine, parental or civil. Oh, and I’m sure there are plenty of nuns circia 60’s-70’s who were viciously pressured, castigated, ousted, repressed, stripped of their modest habits by the “spirit of Vatican II” type sisters; and who would be repulsed at the suggestion that the female exemplifies gracious rulership. What’s Johnson’s beef? It’s as if MULIERIS DIGNITATEM (excerpted above) never happened. RE: “Inclusive language” How come no demands for a lady Satan? Why “priestess” but no “demoness”? *

 

[grannymh]

I realize you do not want to order online, however for those who do, the hardback edition is still available. Both Amazon.com and ContinuumBooks.com (the publisher) show that it is in stock.

Thank you for your patience. I now have the paperback edition of* Quest for the Living God, Mapping Frontiers in the Theology of God*.

Being the free spirit that I am, I first checked the ending of the book. Here is the last line which is a quote from A Sleep of Prisoners by Christopher Fry.

“The enterprise
Is exploration into God.”

This is the document under consideration: usccb.org/doctrine/statement-quest-for-the-living-god-2011-03-24.pdf

Statement on [book] Quest for the Living God: Mapping Frontiers in the Theology of God, by Sister Elizabeth A. Johnson

Presented by the Committee on Doctrine, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

Blessings,
granny

Genesis 1:1

 

[Elizabeth502]

Yesterday (Tuesday) on Women of Grace, Johnette Benkovic was reading either from a statement from the bishops (quoting the book) or directly from the book itself. It was something about “pan-entheism” which came very close to pantheism. (Johnson apparently describes creation as God’s “expression,” which apparently is one of the controversial aspects of the theology. In itself, I don’t find “expression” to be necessarily contradictory to traditional Catholic theology about creation, depending on how ‘expression’ is qualified!); however, Benkovic went on to quote or to paraphrase passages which implied that God is not wholly Other (in that “expression,” and in other aspects). The latter is definitely a non-orthodox position. God’s absoluteness Otherness is essential to Catholic systematic theology. If Johnson can’t get that part straight, then I wonder about the development of her theology in the book (which I have not read!), because of this problem with a central premise.

Creation may be in-Spirited, we as the Body of Christ are gifted with the Spirit, etc., but none of that sharing of divine life merges us into God, even partly or temporarily. Even with the unity attained in the Beatific Vision, individuals will remain individuals, distinct from God as separate beings, despite profoundly sharing the Divine life. Unity is not dissolution of separation.

The problem may be entirely in the language. (Which is why perhaps Johnson is saying that the hierarchy is “misinterpreting” her.) Unfortunately, language means a lot, and nowhere is that more true than in systematic theology. You have to be clear and distinct with your terms. If you’re using classic terms in a new setting (or redefining them directly or indirectly), then unless you defend how these same terms can be applied differently, it’s understandable that she might be “misinterpreted.”

I am not curious enough to read her book, but I’m glad granny is, so I will be interested in how this central Catholic premise of The Other is dealt with in the book. Hopefully granny will share that with us.

 

[grannymh]

Yesterday (Tuesday) on Women of Grace, Johnette Benkovic was reading either from a statement from the bishops (quoting the book) or directly from the book itself. It was something about “pan-entheism” which came very close to pantheism. (Johnson apparently describes creation as God’s “expression,” which apparently is one of the controversial aspects of the theology. In itself, I don’t find “expression” to be necessarily contradictory to traditional Catholic theology about creation, depending on how ‘expression’ is qualified!); however, Benkovic went on to quote or to paraphrase passages which implied that God is not wholly Other (in that “expression,” and in other aspects). The latter is definitely a non-orthodox position. God’s absoluteness Otherness is essential to Catholic systematic theology. If Johnson can’t get that part straight, then I wonder about the development of her theology in the book (which I have not read!), because of this problem with a central premise.

Creation may be in-Spirited, we as the Body of Christ are gifted with the Spirit, etc., but none of that sharing of divine life merges us into God, even partly or temporarily. Even with the unity attained in the Beatific Vision, individuals will remain individuals, distinct from God as separate beings, despite profoundly sharing the Divine life. Unity is not dissolution of separation.

The problem may be entirely in the language. (Which is why perhaps Johnson is saying that the hierarchy is “misinterpreting” her.) Unfortunately, language means a lot, and nowhere is that more true than in systematic theology. You have to be clear and distinct with your terms. If you’re using classic terms in a new setting (or redefining them directly or indirectly), then unless you defend how these same terms can be applied differently, it’s understandable that she might be “misinterpreted.”

I am not curious enough to read her book, but I’m glad granny is, so I will be interested in how this central Catholic premise of The Other is dealt with in the book. Hopefully granny will share that with us.

Thank you.

I am not familiar with “pan-entheism” so I appreciate the heads up. I am familiar with the assault on original sin and the early issues of “feminism” having worked in the era of white gloves and a small black hat. When the definite clarification that only men could be ordained priests came out, I told my friends that now I don’t have to worry about choosing a seminary.

Language is very important. That was my first impression of the Bishops statement. We should not be surprised by the Bishops’ concern since the importance of language was the driving force in the early Catholic Church via the major Councils.
That the early heresies have morphed into modern forms is also a non-surprise.

Your points above are a good preparation for understanding both the Bishops and Elizabeth Johnson.

Blessings,
granny

Curiosity killed the cat. Satisfaction brought it back.

 

[grannymh]

It was my original intention to follow the points in the Bishops’ statement in the order presented. However, the long opening paragraph of Chapter 1, Ancient Story, New Chapter, page 7, presents information regarding the evolutionary development of humanity. This means that we should look at Chapter 9, Creator Spirit in the Evolving World. (book, pages 181- 201; Bishops’ statement,
pages 16-18)

Granted that this opening paragraph is written in a general information style, it describes the scientific background for the denial of two, real, sole parents of the human species.

In respect for this forum’s ban on evolution discussion, we will not debate evolution per se. Rather, we will focus on the Bishops’ concerns and point out where some of the evolutionary theories are contradicting Catholic doctrines.

The book’s opening paragraph paints human origin as members of the species Homo whose self-consciousness first flickered into being on this planet. It presents insufficient, circumstantial evidence regarding the umbrella term "religion " in some prehistoric societies.

The closing sentence of this paragraph is: “In a word, religion emerged with tools and fire.” (book, page 8; Bishops’ statement pages 16-18 which quotes from the book, pages 185, 188, and 192). This sentence is typical of the evolutionary theory which denies our spiritual soul. Therefore, the faculties or abilities of our spiritual soul are replaced with some kind of material emergence from one’s own anatomy, most likely from the physical brain.

At this point, without reading further, it would be unfair of me to guess why Elizabeth Johnson chose to begin the book with general information that would lead to the subject of polygenism verses the monogenism of Adam and Eve. Please refer to Humani Genesis no. 37. vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html
Current evolutionary theories speak of an “ancestral” population evolving as a group into a human population group. No Adam & Eve.

I am reminded of the first words of Tale of Two Cities which were key to the plot. Elizabeth Johnson’s opening sentence: “The proliferation of insights into God in our days is a new chapter in an immense story whose beginning is lost in the mists of time.” Could this also be key? In any case, we need to remember that Catholic theology has never lost true insights into God in the mists of time.

Blessings,
granny

Isaiah 55

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

It doesn’t have to be a question of evolution, but it does have to be a debate on bad metaphysics based on bad philosophy. When one accepts the modern philosophical notions that things in themselves (per se) can’t be known or that they have no universal application, you come to conclusions based on materialism which are rationalistic. The Church that doesn’t keep up with these modern scholarships is behind the times and is seen as being wrong.

But, this can’t be done without denying the truth of what the Church taught before and changing the depth of profundity with rationalistic understandings. Soul is thus replaced with a mere increased level of consciousness, names for God based in His Nature and analogous to reality is replaced with mere thoughts and ideas searching for God, and, in the most shallow of all, official criticisms are dismissed because the male hierarchy is denigrating the author because she is a woman.

Those with eyes to see and ears to hear will notice these diminishments, but those not as yet endowed will more easily understand this superficial faith because it fits with a rationalism their worldly sensibilities can tolerate. It can also be tested in that a rationalistic, shallow, worldly faith will shun the painful sacrifice necessary to deny their merely human nature in order to grow in the unapproachable light of Divine Grace that perfects and divinizes. “Be perfect…” is a real perfection, but to the superficial, rationalistic faith it is an impossible ideal.

 

[StAnastasia]

Yesterday (Tuesday) on Women of Grace, Johnette Benkovic was reading either from a statement from the bishops (quoting the book) or directly from the book itself. It was something about “pan-entheism” which came very close to pantheism.

This is false. Elizabeth Johnson in no way endorses pantheism. She does rely on St. Augustine, who I presume is not judged to be heretical.

 

[Elizabeth502]

This is false. Elizabeth Johnson in no way endorses pantheism.

Please reread the very quote you boxed. I did not “she endorses pantheism.” I said she comes close, based on excerpts.

In any case, so far, of the excerpts I’ve read from her book, I am underwhelmed. She uses spirituality as a framework for theology. But spirituality is not the discipline of theology. And of what I’ve read, I find her writing sloppy, and her ideas duplicative of what those well-read in theology have read elsewhere, cumulatively. As I said before, so far I am not motivated to purchase the book to read it. For anyone who maintains that Johnson is somehow groundbreaking, I question how much of contemporary theological writing he or she has engaged in, (based on several excerpts from her book).

 

[grannymh]

This is false. Elizabeth Johnson in no way endorses pantheism. She does rely on St. Augustine, who I presume is not judged to be heretical.

Please kindly note that poster Elizabeth 502 referred to “pan-entheism” in post 92. This is different from pantheism which you spoke about. However, the Bishops’ statement (page 16) points out that Johnson’s presentation (book, page 188) lacks any characteristic that would constitute a real difference between it [panentheism] and pantheism.

Elizabeth Johnson’s presentation of the panentheism model on page 188 is quoted in the Bishops’ statement on page 16. For some reason, this will not copy. One can print out the statement for easy reading.
usccb.org/doctrine/statement-quest-for-the-living-god-2011-03-24.pdf

 

[StAnastasia]

Please reread the very quote you boxed. I did not “she endorses pantheism.” I said she comes close, based on excerpts.

In any case, so far, of the excerpts I’ve read from her book, I am underwhelmed. She uses spirituality as a framework for theology. But spirituality is not the discipline of theology. And of what I’ve read, I find her writing sloppy, and her ideas duplicative of what those well-read in theology have read elsewhere, cumulatively. As I said before, so far I am not motivated to purchase the book to read it. For anyone who maintains that Johnson is somehow groundbreaking, I question how much of contemporary theological writing he or she has engaged in, (based on several excerpts from her book).

I don’t know of people who call her work “groundbreaking.” It is stimulating and thoughtful and orthodox. That Is why we theologians assign it in our classes.

 

[StAnastasia]

However, the Bishops’ statement (page 16) points out that Johnson’s presentation (book, page 188) lacks any characteristic that would constitute a real difference between it [panentheism] and pantheism.

This is a false accusation, as you will see if you read the text in Quest for the Living God.