a Suffering God?

Finally finished reading and the notes for Fox’s God and Communion. If nothing else, it is an excellent example of comparing Eastern and Western theologies - except that Johnson’s theology is not a typical Western Theology. Regardless, it is an excellent work. I am struck by Johnson’s understanding of the suffering of God. It is a place of power when God suffers, according to Johnson. When one is in perfect relationship, one will suffer just because others suffer. I wonder if God desires a time when suffering is not. That would be an interesting way to understand the eschatological bent of Zizioulas. Johnson’s understanding of suffering is the best one I have read thus far that is not from a blatant process theology position. It also has an interesting impact upon Ecological issues. The earth suffers and so God suffers. I think one weakness is that “suffering” was not adequately defined. It is talked about as a power and relation, and then written off as a “female emotion,” which I think is bunk. I wonder if we ought to read Foucault’s understanding of power and authority and then apply that to suffering.
Now I get to read more about Wittgenstein.

Trinity and Wittgenstein

Been a while since my last entry, but that is to be expected. Today I touched upon two works. God as Communion by Patricia A. Fox, and The Duty of Genius by Ray Monk.
Fox’s work is comparing the theologies of Zizioulas and Elizabeth Johnson - specifically the Trinity. A couple of things caught my attention thus far. Zizioulas considers the eschaton as a unifying aspect of the trinity - we are all leading toward the end where our relationship with God is perfected. If Zizioulas did not emphasis the diversity and the essential nature of the person, I would fear that he was heading toward a Hegelian understanding of God and time (not to mention that his Eastern context frees him from the Hegelian influence). Johnson reminds us that God is unknowable, and that we can never truly name God. Yet she then proceeds to name God - I guess it is necessary to offer any kind of work. She then lambastes the patriarchal dominance of God’s name, claiming that God cannot have a gender. Yet she proceeds to name God “she” claiming a kind of retribution from centuries of male dominance. I am sure that I am missing some of the nuance of her argument, but this is an initial impression. As I finish the work, no doubt my position will shift.
Monk’s work is a biography of Wittgenstein, and very well done thus far. I have been impressed with the emphasis upon Wittgenstein’s passion to follow philosophy/logic. He almost seems neurotic in his vocational pursuits. I wonder if I could even match a fraction of that passion. I wonder if I want to.