Catherine LaCaugna’s thinking is not shaped by who God really is. She says that there is a mystery of communion. This mystery of communion includes both humans and God as beloved partners. She also refuses the existence of economic and immanent trinity and says that there is only “oikonomia”, which is “the concrete realization of the mystery of God.” She refuses trinity in se and says that “the life of god is not something that belongs to God alone”, it is in relation …show more content…
As she has a feminist approach, she says that God should be emasculated for the equality of women. For her, God is neither male nor female. It is clear that her understanding of God is not derived from scriptures because neither the scriptures nor the doctrine of trinity ever identifies God as a man. Elizabeth Johnson’s idea of understanding God is not derived by placing God in the center, but is derived from placing the women’s experience as the starting point to understand God. Her understanding of God is completely against Barth’s understanding. Barth would never think of God as a man. His understanding is based on keeping God in center and thus is not derived from the human experiences. He says we can refer to God only as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And we can refer to God as the trinity because of the revelation of God in history. When we try to understand God from human experiences we only get self-serving answers, like Elizabeth Johnson gets. Pantheism is a belief that the universe and nature are God. She clearly falls into pantheism because she defines God in terms of human nature. One cannot understand God based on human nature because God cannot be limited by human relationships and