She Who Is by Elizabeth A. Johnson

I wasn't sure about writing about She Who Is here.  It's quite different from most of the books I've described below, in that it's theology and philosophy, not fiction or genre fiction.  I also didn't finish it.  I read enough to know I wasn't prepared to carefully scrutinize the entire book, and so I need to acknowledge that someone who has read the whole thing is undoubtedly in a better position to comment than I am.  I'm not sure if I don't have a sufficiently open mind, or if I don't want to do the heavy lifting, but once I got the gist and the direction, I skimmed the balance of the book without devoting to it the level of attention that I should for detailed commentary.


Further to that thought, I don't have a background in theology or philosophy, so my comments are being made as a casual, interested reader, not as a student or theologian.  One note however, is that if I were reading as a student, having a pile of footnotes at the back of the book is not helpful.  Particularly footnotes in the nature of commentary, I'd expect to see at the bottom of the page, or at worst at the end of each chapter.  Searching for them in the back of the book is more challenging and frequently leads to a disconnect between the statement and the alleged support therefor.


I found She Who Is to be an argumentative piece of literature.  It's got very lofty goals, and perhaps the nature of philosophical writing is to present an argumentative thesis, then proceed to knock down straw men arguments against it.  For myself, I don't enjoy that style of writing.  I would prefer the stating of an argument and then a neutrally constructed examination of whether the argument is supported and where it is not.


Dr. Johnson seems to take a fairly negative and limited view of the Catholic Church.  I can understand her perspective, but the degree to which she views the Church through a one-dimensional lens is such that in genre fiction I'd suspect she was a "unreliable narrator", whose perceptions should be viewed skeptically through a more objective lens.  As an example, she suggests that statements from Vatican II indicating that spiritual growth could come from anywhere was an "unwitting prophecy" that spiritual growth could be achieved by women.  To my mind, the reading that the second Vatican council could not have, or did not contemplate that "anyone" could include women seems more of a value judgment than a statement supported by the text.


In any event, the premise seems to be that God is, by virtue of the nature of God, gender neutral, and not identifiable as male or female.  As a central premise, I definitely agree that's worth thinking about.  Dr. Johnson rightly notes that always referring to God as male or with male pronouns shapes our thought to always think of God (as a trinity) as male.  And when she says that's wrong, or reductive, I agree.


She Who Is wants to change that pattern of thinking to recognize the divinity of God in a manner removed from gender, thereby removing sexism from our presumptions about God and the way our relationship with God shapes our society.  Laudable goals and I agree it's worth aspiring to change our thought process from a male God figure to a divine God figure removed from that aspect of humanity. 


But I think sometimes Dr. Johnson conflates the references to "man" and "human" and uses them in ways that support her analysis rather than as an objective interpretation of what the writer is trying to say.  Sometimes the references to "man" she interprets as "human" and other times as "man", whichever suits her argument at the time.  "Gloria Dei vivens homo" she interprets as "The glory of God is revealed in humanity" as opposed to "man" or "mankind".  I absolutely agree that's a fair interpretation and probably rightly characterizes the intent of the statement.  So why can't that type of interpretation be used consistently when she reads "man"?  To break thought patterns is a valid answer.  Because it discloses inherent sexist intent I think is not.  Using a word that is capable of more than one interpretation I would not see as sexist per se, without further evidence to show there was an intention to make it so.  Rather, I think it would form a good opportunity to highlight, question and consider whether that is the best diction or whether there is a way to more clearly state the intended descriptor.


Dr. Johnson notes that Thomas Aquinas recognized that the divinity of God is beyond personhood, but that references to and uses of personal pronouns give us a means to access God and to interpret God through our own window of experience, without which the concept of the infinite may be beyond our understanding.  Again, I accept this view as valid, but think Dr. Johnson fails to recognize its applicability in the realm of what she describes as the patriarchal structures of the Church.


That is, I accept that the limited gender pronoun should not be the only way of referring to God; that to do so may limit our thought processes and understanding of God.  But to eliminate all patriarchal elements of the relationship between God the Son and God the Father removes some of the ability of humanity to understand God through the window of their own experiences.


Dr. Johnson is correct there is a patriarchal structure to the Church. She suggests that such a structure is inherently sexist and limiting, which may also be correct.  However, to suggest that any use of a patriarchal relationship to describe one's relationship to God is sexist, I think undermines the teachings of the bible and could be even more limiting.  Without the use of patriarchal structures as a window to interpret our relationship with God, we may be left with a fundamentally lessened understanding of God, because we don't have a window of experience to understand His/Her/Its divine nature.  At the time of Jesus' teachings or the gospel writings, He was finding ways to explain God through relationships and scenarios familiar to the people of the day.  Whether using wheat or plants, or shepherd analogies, he was trying to find ways to give people of the day a window into understanding the nature of God, His relationship to God and their relationship with God.

So to say that patriarchal elements of the religion are inherently sexist and limiting, I think is itself limiting.  Is a patriarchal structure the ideal one for the Church?  Hard to say.  But I don't think it's inherently wrong just because it's patriarchal.  In fact it may mirror the relationships that Jesus described between "man" (used here as humanity) and God.  Just because there is a top-down, hierarchical structure to the Church doesn't mean it's sexist.  It's an attempt to mirror the structure that's been passed down through Church teachings. 


From our modern perspective, it's hard to think of the pater familias without an element of sexism involved.  Just as it's hard to think of the type of control a master has over his servants or his slaves.  It is, in many ways, distasteful to think of God as a slaveowner and His relationship to humanity that of an owner to slaves, though it was a way of characterizing the relationship at the time that people would have been able to understand.  In the feudal world, it was easy to compare the structure of the lord or the king to the relationship between God and Man (again, humanity), and so many of the "patriarchal" references Dr. Johnson finds difficult evolved.  I don't necessarily see the role of pater familias as sexist.  It is a top down approach, and in ancient Roman society was a role always held by a male.  But other males of a household were also subject to the will of the pater familias.  Thinking of the role as "head of family" rather than "oldest male of the family" to my mind removes the sexism of the structure, and replaces it with the patriarchal model that Jesus used to describe the relationship with God.  It doesn't mean that the pater familias or the equivalent role in the Church need always be the oldest male, but it does describe the relationship which I believe Jesus was trying to use as a teaching point.


So I don't think it's right to throw out the value of those descriptors of relationship just because the "patriarchal" nature of them seems male oriented.  In fact, the patriarchal relationship between God and Man is, I think the closest description Jesus was able to give us of the role of God the Father in the trinity.  As our society moves further and further from the feudal society of the past, that relationship becomes more and more difficult to understand without examples.  Where is the king (or queen) or lord who can demand obedience?  What is the virtue of the gift of "Fear of the Lord"?  Where in our society can we look to gain an understanding of why you must give over your will entirely to the will of another?  I don't think the use of the male pronoun gives access to that understanding anymore, nor would I say that it should.  But understanding the role of the pater familias or seeing that role reflected in the Church as a patriarchal structure (whether that role is held by men or women) gives a sense of the structures that can lead to an understanding of one's relationship with God and one's role in God's plan.


I fear that the goal of freeing our understanding of the divinity of God from gender might mean losing the understanding we have of humanity's relationship with God.  As such, while I could endorse the concept of freeing God as a trinity from gender references, I'd be more hesitant about removing "God the Father" from the relationship to God the Son and by extension to man (humanity), and while I agree that patriarchal relationships should not be based on sexism, the nature of a hierarchical structure to describe and explain the nature of our relationship with God I think remains of fundamental importance to our quest to understand the nature of divinity.