Tom Smail (1928-2012)

I was sad to read of Tom Smail's death. I've only read a little of what he has written, but he had found a soft spot in my heart.

Some random fragments:

• Devoted most of his writing to the doctrine of the Trinity before it was fashionable.
• In the broad Reformed stream
• Anglican, with a refreshing unsentimental Englishness
• Leading theologian in the Charismatic Renewal, but often mildly critical from within.
• "If only he didn’t write so clearly then perhaps he might be taken more seriously as a theologian" (Jason Goroncy)

Abandoned

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men" ([Rom] 1.18). When we ask how that wrath comes to expression, we have a threefold expression that God's wrath is God's abandonment. "Therefore God gave them over (paredoken) to the sinful desires of their hearts" (v.24), "God gave them over (paredoken) to shameful lusts" (v.26), "He gave them over (paredoken) to a depraved mind" (v.28). It is no coincidence that it is this key verb paradidomi (=to abandon, to give up), which is used again in Romans 8.32, He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up (paredoken) for us all" etc... In order to do anything for those who because of sin have been given up to sin's destructive power, and lethal consequences (Romans 6.23a), the Son of God had to identify himself with them, by himself being treated as one who is abandoned and given up by God.

(p. 116, Thomas Smail, The Forgotten Father)

I never get tired of that. The punishment that belonged to us, fell on him!

While I'm here, a few thoughts on the idea often taught from Romans 1 that the wrath of God being God passively stepping back and giving us what we want:

• To the person enslaved by his own sin, the experience of being able to 'freely' sin is very rarely that we get what we want - "what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do" (Rom 7:15)
• If God's wrath/hell is simply giving someone over to what they want, then how did Jesus experience God's wrath?

In us and for us

Listening to: Mozart: Don Giovanni

[In] the Lutheran tradition [...] any emphasis on the work of the Spirit "in us" is seen to be in latent competition with the work of Christ "for us", to the point that it sometimes seems that the believer magnifies the freeness of God's grace more as a forgiven but unchanged sinner, than as a man in whom the crucified Saviour has worked his regenerating and renewing change. Lutherans are afraid that if anything happens within us, that happening rather than Christ's work will be seen as the basis of our standing with God.

(p. 26, Thomas A. Smail, The Forgotten Father)

I think that criticism is fair. Two quick observations on the two emphases:

• One is marked by an over-realised eschatology (i.e. high-expectations and dreamy optimism), and the other an under-realised eschatology (i.e. low-expectations and realistic pessimism).
• One is marked by joy and the other by seriousness.

It's not balance that we need, but a church aware of both where its citizenship is, but also where it is sojourning in at the moment.

The Forgotten Father

we have had in recent years a Jesus movement and a charismatic movement. The one has almost disappeared and the other is threatening to run out of steam, perhaps because each is in a different way inadequate to the gospel, which is basically a Father movement... It starts not with the cross of Jesus or with the gift of the Spirit, but with the Father who so loved the world that he gave his Son in his Spirit. And it achieves its purpose, not when the body of Christ is gloriously renewed in very part without spot or wrinkle (Ephesians 5:27), not even when the enthroned Christ has subdued all his enemies and brought every knee to bow before him (Philipians 2:11), but rather when that same Christ "hands over the kingdom to the Father, after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power" (1 Corinthians 15:24). "When he has done this, then the Son himself will be subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all" (1 Corinthians 15:28).

(p.20, Thomas A. Smail, 1980, The Forgotten Father)

I like Tom Smail. He ought to be more widely read. His Charismatic Anglican Trinitarian Theology has a lightness of touch, while retaining real depth, which is really refreshing.

Considering those verses from 1 and 2 Corinthians it is striking that the Father is involved not just at the beginning and end but in the middle where he is the one who puts everything under Jesus' feet.

Tom Smail on the Trinity at Easter

Listening to: Seth Lakeman: Freedom Fields

Tom Smail has three theses about the Trinity and the Resurrection of Jesus:

1. "it is the Father who is both the initiating source and the ultimate goal of all that happens in relation to the raising of the Son and the sending of the Spirit. It is from the Father that it all starts and it is to the Father that it is all to return."

"The resurrection is seen [in 1 Pet 1:3] as the distinctive personal act of God the Father, his justifying vindication of Jesus in the face of his crucifiers... Jesus rises because he has been raised up by his Father, he acts because he has first been acted upon by God. He is the resurrection and the life (John 11:25), not in and by himself but because he has received this from the Father.

What is true of his resurrection is also true of his exaltation. He does not exalt himself - that would be against his whole character - it is his Father who exalts him to his own right hand.... his exaltation remains the distinctive personal act of God the Father, 'God, exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name' (Phil 2:9). The authority in heaven and on earth that has been given to him (Matt 28:18) is to be exercised in a way that glorifies and serves the purposes of the Father who gave it (Phil 2:11). In the end indeed, also according to Paul, that kingly authority has to be surrendered back to the Father who gave it, so that God may be all in all (1 Cor 1:24-28)....

The Holy Spirit did not come on his own, he was poured out by Jesus after and as a result of his resurrection and his exaltation... Yet even Jesus is not the ultimate origin of the newly poured out Spirit. He gives him only because he has first received him from the Father.

2. "the integrated Easter event that proclaims the primacy of the Father equally clearly proclaims what we may call the derived deity of the Son."

When the Father raises his Son from the dead to his own throne, he is telling us something not just about himself, but about that son, namely that he belongs not just with us on the human side of reality, but with God himself on the divine side of reality.... 'What does "he ascended" mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions?' (Eph 4:9). His exaltation to God is seen to imply that his work and his person have their eternal origination in God's own life...

All this, however, is said on the clear assumption that it does not threaten the primacy of the Father. The Son is Son because on the one hand he is all that the Father is, he is of the very stuff of the Father's deity, but on the other hand all he has he owes not to himself but to the Father (John 5:19)...

The risen son of God shows himself to be not only our brother, but God's eternal Son, who is to us and does for us what only God can do. Yet at the same time he is to be differentiated from God the Father, as the one who is sent is to be differentiated from the one who sends him, the one who obeys from the one whom he obeys, the one who is raised from the one who raised him.

3. "the integrated Easter event that reveals the primacy of the Father and the derived deity of the Son, also reveals the mutual interdependence of the Son and the Holy Spirit"

"On the one hand it is through the activity of the Spirit that Jesus is raised, and on the other hand it is through the risen Jesus that the Spirit is sent to the church at Pentecost...

Acts 2:33, '[Jesus]...has poured out what you now see and hear', and John 16:7, 'Unless I go away the Counsellor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.' For Paul also the dependence of the work of the Spirit upon the work of Christ is so close that at some points... he seems to identify the one with the other... the Holy Spirit does nothing of his own that is apart from or beyond what Christ has done. He simply takes what is in Christ and so works in us that it becomes ours also...

[on the other hand] the Father raises the Son from the dead through the activity of the Holy Spirit (cf. Rom 1:4; 1 Cor 6:14; 1 Tim 3:16; 1 Pet 3:18). I that is so, then it is the son who is dependent upon the Spirit in his reception of resurrection life from the Father, just as he was dependent upon the Spirit for his human birth from Mary (Luke 1:35)...

The two-sided mutuality of that relationship is classically expressed in the words of John the Baptist in John 1:33, 'The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptise with the holy Spirit.' At his baptism Jesus receives the Spirit and all that he brings from the Father for his own work; at Pentecost he sends that same Spirit from the Father to empower us in our work for him.

All quotes from pp. 63-78, Thomas A. Smail, "The Holy Trinity and the Resurrection of Jesus" in ed Andrew Walker Different Gospels: Christian Orthodoxy and Modern Theologies. Sorry for the extended quotations, but I thought it was all excellent stuff.

Theocentric or anthroprocentric?

Reading Tom Torrance is great because he gets how exciting and shocking it is that God became man in Jesus Christ. He has taught me to see that this is central to everything, while never losing what PT Forsyth says is 'the true seat of Incarnation — a Christ made sin' ("Immanence and Incarnation"). This post is a bit of an application of that...

Listening to a recent discussion on Wright and Piper's debate I was reminded about how both see much contemporary Christianity as too anthroprocentric, and not theocentric enough. I've never been completely happy with drawing a sharp distinction between the two as humanity is made in the image of God. Therefore to be truly anthroprocentric is to be theocentric.

But we can go further in rejecting this dichotomy.

Both Wright and Piper are part of the Reformed tradition and so this also reminded me of John Halton's post quoting Herman Bavinck saying that 'the Reformed Christian thinks theologically, the Lutheran anthropologically' (RD 1:177). John says that he would like to say that 'the Lutheran thinks Christologically' and to be Christocentric is to combine the two in the God-man.

In Christ the true God is revealed, but we are less familiar with the idea that he also reveals our true humanity. For some reason we have focused on all the NT statements that Jesus is the image of God (e.g. 2 Corinthians 4:4; Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:3, cf. John 1:18; 12:45; 14:9) as just referring to his divinity and missed the implication that this shows his humanity as well.

As Tom Smail comments:

Christ is both the divine prototype that is stamped on to our humanity and so imparts to it the divine image, and is also the human being who has received that image and is the perfect expression of it. In the rest of us, in our over-flexible human nature, that image has been eroded and distorted but in Christ it is fresh and new, authentic and complete.

(p. 59, Like Father, Like Son)

So if we want to be free to be ourself we have to look to Christ. But not by following his example, because we cannot be the image of God, but by being in the image of God by his gracious identification with us in our sinful twisted humanity.

Adam is, as is said in [Romans 5:14], the type of Him who is to come. Man's essential and original nature is to be found, therefore, not in Adam but in Christ. In Adam we can only find it prefigured. Adam can therefore be interpreted only in the light of Christ and not the other way round.

(p. 29, Karl Barth cited in Tom Smail, Like Father, Like Son)

Tom Smail on The Holy Spirit

I have a whole host of posts in my head at the moment and I want to get them down before I forget them all. Unfortunately I'm also quite busy and so I'm going to be short on analysis and comment and long on quotes and notes.

I'm really enjoying Tom Smail's book Like Father Like Son, even when I don't fully agree with it. I use the word a lot but it really is thought-provoking.

A difficulty with talking about the Holy Spirit is in keeping two things in balance. We can so understand his personal-nature that we seperate him from the other members of the Trinity and describing him as working outside of or apart from the finished work of Jesus and the finished written word. On the other hand we can understand him as an impersonal force which just a tool of the Father and the Son and not in anyway distinguishable from him. I know I have often not kept things in balance, but I think Tom Smail does quite well:

"He will glorify me because he will take what is mine and declare it to you" (John 16:15). Pannenberg has fastened on this verse as a basis for understanding the Holy Spirit as a source of personal action distinct from the Son. The Spirit brings to the Son, from outside his own person, a new glory that he does not have within himself. Nevertheless, in the work of the Spirit it is the Son who is glorified. The focus of the work of the Spirit is the work of Jesus, not some work of his own that he accomplishes apart from or beyond Jesus. The Spirit is the one who unfolds all that is implicit in the work of the Son, applies it creatively and transformingly in the mission of the Church across the continents and down the centuries in an endlessly enthralling kaleidoscope of new creation in the men and women who, in the Spirit, are brought into the power of the love of the Father as it is savingly incarnate in the love of the Son.

(p.184, Like Father, Like Son: The Trinity Imaged in our Humanity)

A Centurion for a guide

Trinitarian theology causes me a lot of head scratching. Particularly difficult for me to understand is how 'It is in the Son that God is presented to us in a human life, but through his Trinitarian perichoresis that human life images both the Father and the Spirit so that the specificities of their functions and their relationships come into focus' (p. 105f, Tom Smail, Life Father like Son). However, it is in 'the gospel story where God reveals himself' (p.82, ibid), and it is here, rather than abstractions that things become clearer for me. Tom Smail points to the Centurions's comments in Luke 7 for an example of how Jesus reveals his Father:

"Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you come under my roof. Therefore I did not presume to come to you. But say the word, and let my servant be healed. For I too am a man set under authority, with soldiers under me: and I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes; and to another, 'Come,' and he comes; and to my servant, ‘Do this,' and he does it." When Jesus heard these things, he marveled at him, and turning to the crowd that followed him, said, "I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith."

Tom Smail comments that:

What that Gentile faith grasps is that, through the exercise of what is proper to his Sonship, namely his obedience to the Father, in which he is a man under authority, he participates in what is proper to his Father - the power to utter a sovereign word that can take the initiative to break savingly into a situation - and becomes a man with authority to issue orders to illnesses.

(p. 105, ibid)

Stumbling around in my head

I'm currently reading Like Father Like Son: The Trinity Imaged in Our Humanity by Tom Smail. It is a good book, and I'm seeing the truth of Jason Goroncy's statement about Tom Smail that 'If only he didn't write so clearly then perhaps he might be taken more seriously as a theologian'.

I'm still trying to thrash over in my head what Tom Smail describes quite well:

'One of Karl Barth's central theological axioms was that when we are talking of God, it is the actuality that determines the possibility and not the other way round. We do not limit our openness to what God has done by prior notions of our own about what he could do; rather, our basis for recognizing what he can do is what he has already done' (p.27)

Karl Barth himself explains how this has massive implications for our understanding of the nature of God:

'If in faith in Jesus Christ we are ready to learn, to be told, what Godhead, or the divine nature is, we are confronted with what is and always will be to all other ways of thinking a mystery, and indeed a mystery that offends. The mystery reveals to us that for God it is just as natural to be lowly as it is to be high, to be near as it is to be far, to be little as it is to be great, to be abroad as it is to be at home.' (p. 152, CD IV:1 The Doctrine of Reconcilliation, 1956; quoted in p.77, Smail)

I keep on thinking over Philippians 2 and this idea. I am far from decided. My difficulty is that Jesus gave up what was naturally his in his incarnation ('though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor'). And also that though he was crucified, he was also resurrected. Although the NT is clear that Jesus' glory is his cruxifiction as well as his resurrection (e.g. John 12) and that he is glorified because of his cruxifiction (e.g. Phil 2:9 and Rev 5:12). It is difficult for me.

Also difficult for me is understand is precisely how the Son reveals the Trinity. Tom Smail describes how he has two icons of Jesus. One depicting him alone looking out, and one of Jesus with the other two members of the Trinity looking at the Father (he has Rublev's famous one).

Smail comments that 'It is impossible to make any sense of the Jesus of the gospels if we treat him as a solitary individual whose significance is in himself' (p. 67 - which begs the question why you have such an icon - I hate icons). My difficulty is understanding whether we should see the Trinity revealed in Jesus as that solitary individual dying on the cross and rising to new life, or in Jesus as he dies in broken relationship toward his Father, and whom the Father restored by the power of the Spirit. The second option would seem to be right, but does that alter Barth's conclusion that for God it is 'natural to be lowly', when our Father is, and always has been, in heaven. Having said that God the Father obviously suffered seeing his Son crucified, and has throughout human history endured his name being blasphemed. All very difficult for me to make my head around!

And as an aside, listenining to their podcast, Mark Kermode and Simon Mayo have both introduced me to the wonderful phrase 'pharisaic cadre', and to the fact that Richard Nixon was a Quaker.