Quest for the Living God: Mapping Frontiers in the Theology of God

When I discovered that Elizabeth Johnson had just written a new theology of God I knew I was in for a treat. EJ's "She Who Is" has become one of my most cherished books of theology on the nature of God and wonderfully "Quest for the Living God" is of similar high quality.

While "She Who Is" is an articulation of EJ's feminist perspective on the mystery of God and of a bit more scholarly tone, QFTLG is more popularly written presenting not only God from a feminist perspective but also from liberation, black, hispanic, interreligious, ecological and trinitarian perspectives.

In her multi-perspective approach, EJ attempts to harvest the fruit of more creative contemporary theologies that can open up our understanding of God in fresh ways that foster renewed worship, mystery and reverence. While many theologians write academically and very dryly, EJ sets before us a rich feast for not only the mind but the heart as well. She has something of the poet in her and her writing is a treat to read.

I couldn't imagine a better book to be used for a group book discussion for those of a more progressive Christian orientation. For the student, EJ also includes very helpful book recommendations at the end of each chapter for further reading.

The discussion of God, I believe, is the most pressing concern for Christians today in light of the many fundamentalist distortions highlighted in much of today's media. But more than this, the greatest privilege for God lovers of all stripes and perspectives, is to forever contemplate the limitless grandeur and majesty of our God. To that end, this book admirably succeeds in stimulating contemplative reflection and will be a source of inspiration I suspect I'll be turning to repeatedly over the years.

The most recent Amazon reviews of Sr. Elizabeth Johnson's marvelous book on the God who is everywhere are little more than a spate of ringers planted here after a group of Catholic Bishops attacked the work. The attack did not allege any heresy or theological error. It simply states that it is ill at ease with Sr. Elizabeth's insistence that our God is truly everywhere, especially in the poor, the vulnerable, and the oppressed. Their miserly condemnation does not stand up well at all beside Sr. Elizabeth's bracing generosity.

If you want God-talk that has a traditional Catholic lilt, check out the authorized Catholic Catechism. It doesn't need to be rewritten; it's there trussed up in all its medieval busks, corsets, mantles, and surcoats, and nothing Sr. Elizabeth writes contradicts any of it. She simply knows that our God is not bound by any era's intellectual corsets, and THAT's pure Catholic doctrine (Aquinas, Summa Theologicae, 1a, 13.

Her book will not mislead Catholics about God; it simply won't bore them to death. Yes, God is eternal; he doesn't need updating. But we humans do need updating. Just as Augustine used the Platonic lingo current in his time (and NOT in scripture) to bring the Triune God to the people of the 5th century and Aquinas cribbed from Aristotle (NOT in scripture) and the medieval philosophers to square God with 13th century ways of thinking, so Sr. Elizabeth finds the same immutable God in the fabulously mutable world of 21st century humanity.

I think she committed the cardinal sin of Catholic teaching: being interesting.

She (Sr. E, not God) is following in a 2,000 year old tradition that started with Jesus's rather noted update in the 1st century: "You have heard it said...but I say to you..."

Quest for the Living God is the kind of excellent, inspiring, illuminating writing we have come to expect from Elizabeth Johnson! A wonderful book that merits a slow, reflective read and, ideally, discussion with others.

A tour through contemporary currents in the doctrine of God which highlights the context from which each vision emerged, the theological rationale behind it, and the practical implications this vision has for everyday life. It is well worth the money and is accessible for the average interested reader.

Similar to her earlier works, Elizabeth Johnson provides us with an inspiring read with a wide sweep of theological insight - literally from every part of the Christian world. I found the Chapters on the Trinity and the Holy Spirit particulary insightful. A work of scholarly wisdom, yet very accessible for an average reader.

This is a wonderfully written book, easy to read while packed with ideas. I am at the end of two years' training on Spiritual Guidance and this gives me so much rich theology in a beautiful manner that I am deeply grateful. I never studied Rahner, for example, yet here I feel that I am part of his glorious depths. God is even more real to me, as I continue to bathe in this lovely book. Thank you Elizabeth!

Johnson offers multiple ways in which peoples and cultures are taking the Christian story and adapting it to their time, place and culture. She brings life to the many ways in which Christian faith is being lived out as a life affirming, inclusive religion

I love this book! I am using this text for a grad school class in systematic theology, and found it informative and inspiring. The author explains technical aspects of theology with clarity and interest. I highly recommend this book to anyone who is searching for a deeper understanding of God.

Elizabeth Johnson's work helps non-academics like myself understand some of the most difficult points of Catholic theology. Her writing style avoids jargon and technical terms are always accompanied by helpful definitions. I finished the book with a resolve to reread sections which treat depthful articles of my faith respectfully yet with enough explanation to satisfy my curiousity but also to invite me back to meditate on what I have just learned. I have great respect for the author and I highly recommend the book for anyone interested in knowing more about the deepest elements of religion.

This book takes the challenge of the modern age to traditional Christianity head on. The author begins from the stance that in many ways we live in a post-relious period; from there, she proceeds to explore several contemporary currents of theological thought, from Rahner's sense of God as Mystery, through the young German's perception of God as the Crucified God of Compassion, to such approaches as liberation theology and gender neutrality. The book is well structured, with a uniform sequence that brings order to this complex subject. The writing is not aimed at theologeons so much as the intellegent, interested seeker - this is after all about the 'quest for the living God'! The book is, above all, honest, so much so that even unbelievers (the author not among them) will get a lot out of this timely discussion. Highly recommended!

This book by Elizabeth Johnson contains "out of the box" approaches to God, who is "living" in the world and reflected in her several chapters from post WW II theologians to Liberation theologians to major non-Christian religions of the modern world. The author urges us to reject the 2,000 year old theistic model of God for a Creator Spirit who wants humans to continue the evolutionary work of becomeing more human. Full of interesting insights.

I've read this book three times and will read it again. It is the best book on theology that I have ever read. Elizabeth Johnson is my hero.

Elizabeth Johnson, CSJ is a religious nun and a writer. In this book she discusses the theology which she knows very well. Probably the best book I've read on this topic.
I recommend it to anyone seeking answers to questions that many thoughtful people have re the purpose of life, life hereafter, and the role religion plays in one's life.
Anna M. Seidler

This is an excellent book for broadening perspectives on the nature of God and the holy. It is well written, and will not offend any reader who is truly interested in a bigger, more accurate and less absolute, view of God. Those who are sure they know everything about God and have all the answers will probably never make it to this page anyway. But if you do, it is not aimed at your crowd, buy with caution. For anyone else, I strongly recommend it. peace

This is a great 21st excellent theology book!
Thanks Sister, keep writing! We need your talent, gifts,and research!
Blessings and peace, Sister Rose Therese OSF

I received this book in a short time after my order. I am over half way through it and am enjoying it very much. I use it for my morning meditations most mornings. It has aided these with "new blood"!


For those who haven't read it or aren't familiar with it, this book, The Quest for the Living God by Elizabeth Johnson, begins with traditional theologies and enriches these with considerations of various populations' perspectives: most of whom which missing from any book . This puts them all in one place. And Elizabeth Johnson doesn't disappoint! She is inspiring and inclusive in her considerations. If you are familiar with any one perspective, I believe you will still derive much good information from every chapter.

I had Elizabeth Johnson for the course "Christology" at Catholic University a long time ago. She was a nice lady, and hardly a great radical. And somehow picking on her seems sorta like picking on a sweet female King Charles Spaniel who wants nothing but to contemplate God's names and meanings on the living room sofa. A very threatening specter, I'm sure, for these mitred fellows. But those fun-loving Catholic Bishops have taken a dislike to her theologizing. And having just read their dense twenty page condemnation, I am eager to use the context of it to make a point. These Catholic Bishops seem most upset that she has connected Catholic belief with the vast assumption of all sorts of religions in the idea of the "incomprehensibility" of God. But please take note that they were not always upset with such ways of doing things. The Council of Constance, which saved them from political annihilation, used the opposite, namely Nominalism. And they burned Jan Hus for holding the position they do now. They are the best cherry pickers. Very silly. But no one should see in their latest blandishments anything but opportunism and proof of intrinsic inconsistency of approach and meanings of doctrines over time and history.

On Wednesday, March 30, 2011, the USCCB Committee on Doctrine posted at the USCCB website a strongly worded critique of Sister Elizabeth Johnson's book QUEST FOR THE LIVING GOD: MAPPING FRONTIERS IN THE THEOLOGY OF GOD (2007). (USCCB = United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.)

According to published reports, 20,000 copies of QUEST FOR THE LIVING GOD have been sold, evidently mostly as college textbooks.

Johnson is a professor of theology at Fordham University in the Bronx, the author of a number of books in theology, and the past president of two different professional associations of theologians. She belongs to a religious order known as the Sisters of St. Joseph of Brentwood (in New York).

The USCCB Committee on Doctrine reportedly undertook its year-long review of Johnson's book because of concerns about it expressed by some bishops. But as a result of the USCCB Committee on Doctrine's critique, will Catholic educators stop using her book as a textbook in undergraduate theology courses? I hope not.

Ironically enough, an earlier batch of Catholic bishops had formulated a set of guidelines in the early 1980s for bishops to follow in dealing with any theologian regarding the theologian's publications. However, the chair of the USCCB Committee on Doctrine, Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington, DC, felt that the Committee on Doctrine did not need to follow those established guidelines, because the established guidelines were supposedly established for a local bishop to follow in dealing with a theologian.

Had the bishops who were concerned about Johnson's book taken their concerns to her local bishop, instead of taking them to the USCCB Committee on Doctrine, then her local bishop would presumably have followed the established guidelines.

In any event, Laurie Goodstein wrote an article for the NEW YORK TIMES online about the controversy stirred up by the Committee on Doctrine's critique: "Nun's Book Is Criticized By Bishops" (April 1, 2011; a shorter version appeared with a different headline in the print edition on March 31st.)

According to Goodstein, Johnson declined an interview. But Johnson issued a short statement in which she made five key points reported by Goodstein: (1) Johnson had not been aware that the bishops were assessing her book until they had already decided to issue their critique; (2) she was never invited to discuss the book with the bishops; (3) as a result, "in several key instances this statement [their critique] radically misinterprets what I [Johnson] think, and what I in fact wrote"; (4) "[t]he conclusions thus drawn paint an incorrect picture of the fundamental line of thought the book develops"; and (5) she still hopes to have a conversation with the bishops about their misrepresentations of her thought.

But here's the most risible sentence in Goodstein's article: The Rev. Thomas Weinandy, executive director of the USCCB Secretariat for Doctrinal and Pastoral Practices, "said the doctrine committee had no authority to mandate that the book be removed from Catholic educational institutions or to discipline Sister Johnson." Got that?

In plain English, the USCCB Committee on Doctrine is a yapping watchdog that can growl and snarl and bark and show its teeth and jump and gyrate and yelp and salivate and foam at the mouth. But it's a caged yapping watchdog.

But let us not unduly minimize the threat here. The bishops who are concerned about Johnson's book could still take their case to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the Vatican, which does have the authority to discipline theologians.

So in light of the USCCB Committee on Doctrine's lack of authority to discipline Sister Johnson or to mandate that her book not be used in Catholic institutions, what is the point supposed to be of posting the Committee of Doctrine's critique of Johnson's book at the USCCB website? Or of even undertaking to write it in the first place? Your guess is as good as mine.

But my guess is that the Committee on Doctrine now wants to prompt local bishops to stir up trouble for Catholic institutions in their dioceses where the book is used as a textbook. Certain bishops presented their concerns about her book to the Committee on Doctrine, so the Committee on Doctrine is now giving the concerned bishops the "cover" they need to stir up trouble in their dioceses.

My guess about this possible strategy is reinforced by the letter that Cardinal Wuerl, the chair of the USCCB Committee on Doctrine, sent to all his fellow American bishops and posted at the USCCB website, following the backlash over the Committee on Doctrine's critique of Johnson's book. I myself would interpret Wuerl as calling on his fellow bishops to show everybody that the bishops are the bosses, as though American Catholics and others had somehow failed to notice that the bishops are the bosses.

By stirring up trouble about legalized abortion in the first trimester and about other issues, the Catholic bishops are able to direct attention away from how certain Catholic bishops helped cover up allegations about priest sex abuse and away from controversial church teachings such as the ban on artificial contraception. So stirring up trouble is definitely a high priority for the Catholic bishops. As they say in American football, the best defense is a good offense. So watch out Sister Johnson!

If I may be allowed to switch my sports metaphors, it strikes me that the ball is now in the court of the local bishops regarding Johnson's book. If there is to be a next move in this unfolding game, the next move is theirs to make. For example, local bishops could threaten to refuse to allow Catholic educators who use the book to receive communion at Sunday Mass unless they stop using the book. However, I myself do not think they should make any further moves regarding Johnson's book. Nevertheless, I do think the bishops are rabid dogs. So watch out Sister Johnson!

A brief digression is in order here about the Catholic bishops. Certain bishops such as Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Denver seem to be itching for a fight. Chaput would like to see the bishops unite to decide to refuse to allow Catholic politicians to receive communion at Sunday Mass who publicly oppose the Catholic Church's opposition to legalized abortion in the first trimester. I myself think that it would be un-American for the Catholic bishops in the United States to try to intimidate American politicians into endorsing the Vatican's opposition to legalized abortion in the first trimester. The Vatican is a foreign power, and bishops are agents of the Vatican, agents of a foreign power. So are priests. Priest and bishops can be officially laicized only by the Vatican. This provision shows clearly that priests and bishops are officially agents of a foreign power. As is well known, the pope and the Vatican have the authority to make certain rules for Catholics. But American politicians are supposed to help makes rules (laws) not only for Catholics but also for non-Catholics as well. Why should non-Catholics be held to rules for Catholics? Shouldn't religion be a private matter? Catholics should be allowed to follow church teaching if they want to. But wouldn't it be un-American for Catholic bishops to try to intimidate American politicians who publicly support legalized abortion in the first trimester?

As I say, certain rabid-dog bishops such as Chaput seem to be itching for a fight. Thus far, the long-suffering Catholic laity have not put up much of a fight against the Catholic bishops, despite the role of the bishops in covering up allegations of priest sex abuse. Perhaps the long-suffering Catholic laity will never put up much of a fight against the Catholic bishops. The Catholic bishops seem to be banking on that. Nevertheless, each new fight that the Catholic bishops provoke will add further fuel to the fires of discontent with the bishops that are already smoldering.

In his letter, mentioned above, Wuerl emphasized the teaching role of the Catholic bishops. So I want to turn my discussion now to consider teaching and learning. Over my lifetime, I have devoted a considerable amount of time and attention both to learning and to teaching. From my own considerable experience in trying to understand Catholic theological doctrines about God (not only as a Catholic undergraduate student but also as a Jesuit seminarian later in my life in graduate theological studies), I would say that it is not easy to learn how to understand and discuss Catholic theological doctrines. (Disclosure: I am no longer a practicing Catholic nor a Christian; I am a theistic humanist, as distinct from a secular humanist.)

If the Catholic bishops themselves are today fluent in discussing theological doctrines, good for them. If they were fluent in discussing theological doctrines when they were undergraduates in college, good for them. If they were fluent in discussing theological doctrines when they were seminarians in high school (if they were seminarians in high school), good for them.

But just how fluent can most Catholic undergraduates today be expected to be in discussing Catholic theological doctrines?

And just how should undergraduate teachers today go about instructing Catholic undergraduate students regarding Catholic theological doctrines?

In effect, the bishops' animadversions against Johnson's book seem to suggest that the bishops know the way undergraduate theology teachers should go about teaching undergraduates theology courses. In brief, the way to do this is to emphasize what the official Catholic theological doctrine is. But I am not convinced that this way of proceeding would work well even in seminary education in high school seminaries. And I am even less convinced that this way of proceeding would work well with Catholic undergraduates who are not seminarians in high school seminaries.

In theory, local bishops could use the USCCB Committee on Doctrine's critique to question the use of Johnson's book at any Catholic colleges or universities in their dioceses. However, the local bishops would be opening a can of worms if they were to undertake to do this.

For example, what if the Catholic educators who use Johnson's book also have the students read the Committee on Doctrine's critique of the book? And what if the Catholic educators go to the trouble of spelling out clearly what the official doctrine of the Catholic Church is regarding God? Wouldn't it become rather time-consuming for local bishops to conduct investigations into how Catholic educators are teaching Johnson's book? Wouldn't Catholic colleges and universities in the United States resist such investigations of their teachers by local bishops on the grounds of the American understanding of academic freedom?

But we should also consider teaching and how teachers might proceed to teach anything as complicated as Catholic theology admittedly is. The Catholic Church holds certain theological doctrines. Quite a few as a matter of fact. These theological doctrines are summed up in comparatively brief statements in the Catholic catechism. Catholic school children can be indoctrinated into these theological doctrines by being required to learn them by heart so that they can recite them when asked.

But if Catholic school children are to be expected to learn how to recite short forms of admittedly complex theological doctrines, shouldn't they also be indoctrinated about how to respond to possible objections to these doctrines? In addition, shouldn't Catholic school children be told that not all people in the world today believe in the Christian tradition of thought? Not only are there non-Catholic Christians in the world today. There are also non-Christians in the world today.

But do Catholic school children ever reach an age and a level of intellectual development when they should be expected to move beyond learning how to remember and recite pre-formulated answers to questions about admittedly complicated theological doctrines?

Granted, there may be an understandable expectation for teachers to have regarding "recitation." Teachers should indeed expect students to give evidence that they understand what they have presumably studied by "reciting" it back, but usually in their own words, rather than in a formulary way as catechism recitation may encourage. If I cannot accurately paraphrase in my own words what I have studied, then I probably do not understand the material.

In the case of theological doctrines, both the formulary expression of the doctrine and any possible objections to it are usually complicated enough that they require a certain level of intellectual development. But I will not attempt here to suggest a specific age by which Catholic school children might be expected to reach such a level of intellectual development. Some might reach it at an earlier age than others. But some might not reach it at any age because some theological doctrines are hard to grasp, to put it mildly.

Nevertheless, it strikes me that Catholic colleges and universities should try to offer a level of instruction that goes beyond the level of catechism recitation about theological doctrines. But as I have indicated, it is possible that not all Catholic undergraduates are intellectually ready to benefit from such advanced instruction. For the sake of discussion, we may speak of those undergraduates who may be intellectually ready and those who may not be.

In any event, I hope that Catholic theologians who have used Johnson's QUEST FOR THE LIVING GOD in the past in undergraduate theology courses do not stop using it just because the USCCB Committee on Doctrine has posted a critique of it at the USCCB website. Even the USCCB has acknowledged that the USCCB Committee on Doctrine has "no authority to mandate that the book be removed from Catholic educational institutions or to discipline Sister Johnson."


Thomas J. Farrell, author of Walter Ong's Contributions to Cultural Studies: The Phenomenology of the Word and I-Thou Communication (Media Ecology)

Elizabeth Johnson does it again - beautifully!
This book is informative, inspirational and challenging
to all who welcome her knowledge and wisdom and all who
might become open to new perspectives.

This book was really good. There were specific chapters that gave me alot to think about.

Quest for the Living God: Mapping Frontiers in the Theology of God
This is an excellent book. I often find used books a great help to the pocketbook, but this one didn't save me much and I found the pre-high-lighted sections distracting.

From her easy chair @ Fordham, Sr. Johnson in unseemly manner dismisses as "luxuriant" the theology of Nicea, wrought by saintly Bishops who suffered in exile under the Arians.

The USCCB Committee on Doctrine, led by Cardinal Whuerl, issued a devastating critique of this book, calling it full of "misrepresentations, ambiguities and errors bearing on the faith of the Catholic Church," presenting "false alternatives" and "false presuppositions." To sum up, Sr. J insists that if God cannot be fully comprehended, then He cannot be known in part, therefor theology that she rejects has no priority, and she is free to flip theology around and use it, not to know God, but to concoct feminist power structures.

Cardinal Whuerl's committee reviewed the book, and concluded that the book IS "NOT IN ACCORD with AUTHENTIC CATHOLIC TEACHING on ESSENTIAL POINTS," and published that in a statement in March 2011. Sr. J and her colleagues, too clever by half, complained that the doctrine committee's statement was high-handed - admonishing the Bishops that they should have conferred with Sr. J first. But Whuerl et al would have none of that tripe - and threw the flag at Sr. J for publishing her book, without requesting an imprimatur, and using it as a theology text book for Catholic students.

Sr. Johnson offers new age syncretism, not "limited" to Christ, but allowing wider-ranging revelations, from Islam, Feminist theory, etc.

Better to be in exile with St. Athanasius.

Non-Catholics are welcome to ignore this review, but faithful Catholics should know that this book has been condemned by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The 21-page statement from the doctrine committee outlines seven categories of problems in the book.

First, at the level of method, the statement accuses Johnson of questioning core elements of traditional Christian theology, including its understanding of God as "incorporeal, impassible, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent." Doing so, the statement asserts, is "seriously to misrepresent the tradition and so to distort it beyond recognition."

Second, the statement faults Johnson for treating language about God in the Bible and in church tradition as largely metaphorical, implying that truth about God is essentially "unknowable." Even if mysteries such as the Trinity and the Incarnation can never be fully grasped, the statement says, they can nevertheless be "known." While Johnson bases part of her argument on early church fathers, according to the statement, her position actually has more in common with Immanuel Kant and "Enlightenment skepticism."

Third, the statement asserts that in talking about the "suffering" of God, Johnson actually undermines God's transcendence, suggesting that God differs only in degree, not in kind, from other beings.

Fourth, according to the statement, Johnson advocates new language about God not based on its truth but its socio-political utility. In particular, she argues that all-male language about God perpetuates "an unequal relationship between women and men," and thus has become "religiously inadequate." In fact, according to the statement, male imagery about God found in scripture and tradition "are not mere human creations that can be replaced by others that we may find more suitable."

Fifth, the statement asserts that Johnson's emphasis on the presence of the Holy Spirit in non-Christian religions "denies the uniqueness of Jesus as the Incarnate Word." In effect, according to the statement, Johnson's argument suggests that for the fullness of truth about God, "one needs Jesus + Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, etc.", a position it says is "contrary to church teaching."

Sixth, the statement says, Johnson's treatment of God as Creator ends in pantheism, undercutting the traditional understanding of God as "radically different from creation."

Seventh, the statement faults Johnson's understanding of the Trinity. Johnson treats traditional language about God as three persons as symbolic, according to the statement, thereby undercutting the church's belief that "Jesus is ontologically the eternal Son of the Father."

In its conclusion, the statement says the root problem with Johnson's book is that it "does not take the faith of the church as its starting point."

"It effectively precludes the possibility of human knowledge of God through divine revelation," the statement says, "and reduces all names and concepts of God to human constructions that are to be judged not on their accuracy ... but on their social and political utility."

Clearly this book represents a modernist understanding of God and not (as claimed by the author) one in the Patristic tradition of the Church. It has been rejected by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops as not reflecting the truth of God. If you're looking for an authentic understanding of God, look somewhere else. A good start might be "Abba Father" from Scepter Publishers.

[...]

If you are a faithful Catholic and have a thirst for the living God, save your money. This book is not a work of Catholic theology. As a Catholic theologian, I can tell you that the starting point for all authentic Catholic theology is divine revelation as taught by the Magisterium of the Church. Sr. Johnson has gone well beyond that in her book. Listen to the what the U.S. Bishops' Committee on Doctrine has to say about this book:"the basic problem with Quest for the Living God as a work of Catholic theology is that the book does not take the faith of the Church as its starting point. Instead, the author employs standards from outside the faith to criticize and to revise in a radical fashion the conception of God revealed in Scripture and taught by the Magisterium...What is lacking in the whole of this discussion is any sense of the essential centrality of divine revelation as the basis of Christian theology," the statement says. "The names of God found in the Scriptures are not mere human creations that can be replaced by others that we may find more suitable according to our own human judgment. The standard by which all theological assertions must be judged is that provided by divine revelation, not by unaided human understanding."
Since the bishops are the divinely appointed, authentic teachers of the Catholic faith, a faithful Catholic will listen to their critique of a theology book. This book can do much harm to souls, especially if it is used as a theology textbook by the unsuspecting and those not well versed in their faith. Avoid this book and look elsewhere. Better choices would be: Contemplating the Trinity: The Path to the Abundant Christian Life by Raniero Cantalamessa; The Tripersonal God: Understanding and Interpreting the Trinity by Gerald O'Collins; Understanding "Our Father": Biblical Reflections on the Lord's Prayer by Scott Hahn.