McCall Johnson Review
I must at the onset state that I have deduced that Ms. Johnson is nothing but a mean woman! Her anger seemingly seethes through the pages of her text entitled “She Who Is” (cite 2nd paragraph on pg. 5, e.g.). It seems to me that the central question guiding the text referenced above is “what is the right way to speak about God?” In typical hyper-feminist fashion, Johnson advocates an over-correction of androgyny to imagery that is overly feminine in orientation. This assertion of my own is verified and validated by noting the consummation of Johnson’s work: a RENAMING of God as “She Who Is”, and not by the name that He discloses Himself as in Scripture. I find this objective of Johnson (i.e. a feminization of the Godhead) to be utterly repugnant and downright damnable, for it results in advocacy of idolatry. “She Who Is” is in no way inclusive of males, so in effect Johnson discloses openly her hypocrisy in that trying to undo a wrong she in actuality induces a wrong! She herself notes that “right speech about God is inseparable from solicitude for all creatures” (14), but then belies that very notion in terming God in the manner that she does. She bases her ‘new’ understanding of God on— above all things!— subjective experience (ref. 29). Subjectivity is inherently fickle, flippant, and foul, as it is driven to and fro by the winds of emotion. I take offense at Johnson’s proposition to view the Godhead as “God/ess”, because invariably one first reads that quotation as “goddess” (inherently feminine) before reading it as “God” (neither inherently feminine nor inherently masculine). Moreover, I find that the same critique applies to referring to God as “s/he”, because one first reads that as “she” before one reads that as “he” (which creates a ‘materno-centric’ [is that a word?] reading and understanding of God). Most centrally, I am offended at Johnson because of her blatant disavowal of Jesus’ own conception of “God” as being His “Father”. This notion once again affirms in my mind that in order to accommodate our cultural whims, Christians invariably belie the authority of Scripture and thereby re-write it to fit their views (recollect, beloved of God, that Jesus cried out from the cross on which he hung, “FATHER, into thy hands I commit my spirit”). I deem it true that Johnson would be best ‘served’, so to speak, to pursue the development of the feminine aspect of the Holy Spirit rather than attempting to make God the Father and God the Son into something that neither one of them were, are, or will be…