booklogging

Smail, Tom.
Like Fother like Son, the Trinity Imaged in our Humanity.
Paternoster Press, 2005, 304pp. ISBN 1-84227-324-6

This is a good successor to Tom's earlier books starting with 'The Forgotten Father'. The style and sizes are similar. Those knowing Tom's work already will not be surprised at the orthodoxy, biblical and careful building of arguments found in this book. Neither will you be surprised at his willingness, within that framework, to take positions that are critical of some received wisdom. He carefully examines the notions around 'image' and then goes on to a robust defence of Trinitarianism.

It was good to see the human imaging of God treated not just in terms of the individual but also of the social and a well argued relating of original sin to the social dimension of being human making good use of Alistair McFadyen's 'Bound to Sin'. The contemporory flirtation with Pelagianism is put in its place, though I suspect that it may not convince the semi-Pelagian approaches which are more characteristic of present viewpoints, still the labels Augustinian and Pelagian serve well to characterise two different fundamental approaches to the understanding of sin and its effects. I think that the view taken in this book, actually undercuts a lot of the controversy in practice.

There is a useful and helpful 'compare and contrast' between western and eastern approaches to the Trinity which pulls out the strengths and weaknesses of each. And I felt that the discussion of creativity was potentially very helpful for those engaged in artistic endeavour.

In the edition I have, the front cover illustration is an interesting photographic echo of Rublev's famous icon Hospitality at Mamre, more commonly known as the icon of the Holy Trinity. The interest is that it raises an issue that the book addresses quite creatively: that of gender and the image of God. This is where I suspect that the most heat could be generated, but I do feel that what Tom invites us to consider is, to be sure, challenging, but probably needs to be done. Overall he defends the notions both of gender equality and of gender difference. I think he probably succeeds in both but at the risk of being misunderstood to be returning to patriarchy. Ultimately I don't think he is making any apologetic for patriarchy but rather giving a position which can affirm the statistically significant differences that tend to be associated with gender and which are showing up in scientific study (and even popular culture, as Mars and Venus, directions and maps etc etc) but also strongly underpin a basic equality. I will leave you to decide whether he succeeds, but it was to my mind one of the more intriguing and thought-provoking sections of the book. He writes that the chapter was placed late in the book precisely because of its potentially controversial nature.

Labels: Christian, theology, Trinity