theological anthropology and gender
This is the current working title of my 15,000 word MTC project. While I was in London I did a fair bit of reading, but not much writing. But the rubber is about to hit the road - I must start writing soon.
I spent some time today re-reading Tom Smail's new book 'Like Father Like Son: The Trinity imaged in our humanity'. I love what he is trying to do, but mainly it just makes me mad - I thought I'd try and share some of my reflections on what he says with you all. In his intorduction he states: 'This book is an attempt to discover what it might mean for our humanity that God is Trinity.' In chater 1 he goes on: 'This book is about what it means for men and women to be made and remade in the image of god, which is, of course, one of the main ways in which Christian theology has tried to understand our humanity in its relationship to God' (pages 1-2).
Smail makes some insightful comparisons between anthropology and christology (57-62) where he distinguishes between humanity in general and Adam in particular as being made 'in' the image of God in contrast to Jesus Christ who is said to 'be' the image of God (Col 1:15). 'Adam reflects God as his creature, his imaging is coincident with his creating; Christ on the other hand, images God as being himself integral to the life and being of the God he images.'
In the next section, Smail critiquest western trinitarianism, from Augustine to Barth, arguing that the western focus on the one-ness of God has obscured the triune nature of God and has, unintentionally, collapsed the Godhead into a self-loving monad. As Mike Ovey would say, he is perpetuating the grand meta-narrative that western trinitarianism took a wrong turn at Augustine and has never really recovered until in he 20th century the west discovered and appreciated the discoveries of the east. On Barth: 'Does not that love that Barth wants to assert require the personal otherness of the lover and the beloved which the strong assertion of God as the one persoal subject in threefold repitition throws into doubt? Are we not, in the end, left wondering whether, despite all the other elements in Barth's exposition that procalim the opposite, this is a God who loves himself and who models for our imaging an ultimate self-love?' (Page 90).
In the end Smail is pushed by Moltmann and eastern thinking to conclude that it is necessary to embrace first the threefold nature of God and then move to the one (which is OK as far as it goes I think). At 93: 'If God is a community of persons, then from our knowledge of him we are able to see that those made in his image are themselves to be understod as persons in community.' Smail seeks to avoid a socail trinity based simply on a union of wills. Whilke the plurality has primacy, the unity is grounded in the sharing of the divine nature (96) and the perichoretic union of father son and spirit (97). While I appreciate these inghts I am not sure I agree with his social trinity and whether he has fairly presented Augustine, Barth and the western tradition.
More thoughts to come ...
I spent some time today re-reading Tom Smail's new book 'Like Father Like Son: The Trinity imaged in our humanity'. I love what he is trying to do, but mainly it just makes me mad - I thought I'd try and share some of my reflections on what he says with you all. In his intorduction he states: 'This book is an attempt to discover what it might mean for our humanity that God is Trinity.' In chater 1 he goes on: 'This book is about what it means for men and women to be made and remade in the image of god, which is, of course, one of the main ways in which Christian theology has tried to understand our humanity in its relationship to God' (pages 1-2).
Smail makes some insightful comparisons between anthropology and christology (57-62) where he distinguishes between humanity in general and Adam in particular as being made 'in' the image of God in contrast to Jesus Christ who is said to 'be' the image of God (Col 1:15). 'Adam reflects God as his creature, his imaging is coincident with his creating; Christ on the other hand, images God as being himself integral to the life and being of the God he images.'
In the next section, Smail critiquest western trinitarianism, from Augustine to Barth, arguing that the western focus on the one-ness of God has obscured the triune nature of God and has, unintentionally, collapsed the Godhead into a self-loving monad. As Mike Ovey would say, he is perpetuating the grand meta-narrative that western trinitarianism took a wrong turn at Augustine and has never really recovered until in he 20th century the west discovered and appreciated the discoveries of the east. On Barth: 'Does not that love that Barth wants to assert require the personal otherness of the lover and the beloved which the strong assertion of God as the one persoal subject in threefold repitition throws into doubt? Are we not, in the end, left wondering whether, despite all the other elements in Barth's exposition that procalim the opposite, this is a God who loves himself and who models for our imaging an ultimate self-love?' (Page 90).
In the end Smail is pushed by Moltmann and eastern thinking to conclude that it is necessary to embrace first the threefold nature of God and then move to the one (which is OK as far as it goes I think). At 93: 'If God is a community of persons, then from our knowledge of him we are able to see that those made in his image are themselves to be understod as persons in community.' Smail seeks to avoid a socail trinity based simply on a union of wills. Whilke the plurality has primacy, the unity is grounded in the sharing of the divine nature (96) and the perichoretic union of father son and spirit (97). While I appreciate these inghts I am not sure I agree with his social trinity and whether he has fairly presented Augustine, Barth and the western tradition.
More thoughts to come ...
posted by Mandy at
Sunday, July 30, 2006
4 Comments:
Where has he misrepresented the west?
And are you going to discuss/defend the western innovation: filioque?
By
byron smith, at Sunday, July 30, 2006 11:23:00 pm
I'm just not sure I buy that the West got it all wrong until the 20th century rediscovered the East.
One of my big probelms it that his presentation of Barth as ultimately a modalist doesn't ring true. I'm not sure that affirming the oneness of God is such a crime, especially when the alternative is a plurality that has no concrete grounding. I'm not quie sure how he gets around affirmations that there is only one God.
Not sure I will get to the filioque, although interesting to note that while Smail wants to proclaim the independent personality of the Spirit, he can only describe his role in terms of the 'fulfilment of the Spirit' or as the one who 'perfects' or 'completes' what the Father begins, in such a way that it is hard to see how he retains his personhood and is not just subsumed as an outworking of the Fathers initiation and Sons obedience.
By
Mandy, at Monday, July 31, 2006 9:23:00 pm
I'm just not sure I buy that the West got it all wrong until the 20th century rediscovered the East.
Why not if the West and East were getting a whole lot of things wrong from about the same time until the 16thC?
One of my big probelms it that his presentation of Barth as ultimately a modalist doesn't ring true.
Can't say I've read enough Barth (or Smail) to comment.
Re: personality of the Spirit, it was a shame you missed Doyle as men's chapel on Tuesday, since he seemed to be heading in the direction of losing the Spirit's personality too... (I'm sure he'll correct this when he gets to his Spirit sermons sometime in the next ten years).
By
byron smith, at Thursday, August 03, 2006 5:29:00 pm
Why not if the West and East were getting a whole lot of things wrong from about the same time until the 16thC?
Not to deny that we theologians are always making mistakes and being corrected, but I'm quite concerned that Smail's account of the trinity at times sounds tritheistic, something that I have found that many social trinitarians who rave about the contributions of the east also do.
And re: Doyle - one of my constant frustrations at college is that it is too big for us all to be in chapel together at the same time. Someone always misses out. Having to find a time for women's chapel doesn't help either. But hey, I can't complain, On Tuesday while you were having the spirit robbed of his personhood I heard a greatly encouraging sermon from Katherine challenging me to be the scum of the earth.
By
Mandy, at Thursday, August 03, 2006 9:16:00 pm
Post a Comment
<< Home