In Whose Image: Faith, Science, and the New Genetics Book

This is a book I loved and hated. Its topic is wonderful and the scope and conception are great. It gives lots of detail on most all of the Southern Presbyterian theologians of Union (VA) and Columbia (SC/GA) seminaries. I appreciated Dr. Smith's sympathy for the figures he studies. His evangelical and Reformed commitments allow him to often see men like Dabney and Thornwell with great zeal.

This is a reprint of Dr. Smith's doctoral dissertation from Free University, Amsterdam. P&R has packaged it very nicely, though the dark blue spine develops white lines after just a short reading.

Sadly, I don't know how I can possibly list all of the disappointing features of this book. The pickiest problem -- in 50 years nobody has bothered to catch all of the embarrassing factual errors in this text! For example, several pages are dedicated to William *Swain* Plumer (correct spelling *Swan*). There are literally dozens of these type of errors which undermine the credibility of the author.

Far more serious is the flawed approach to history that Smith takes. He has a chip on his shoulder and this sometimes seems to make him look somewhat silly. He goes to huge lengths to try to show that the Southern Presbyterians were superior to the Old Princetonians. The evidence he gathers on this is really very, very weak.

Further, he wants to argue that all the Southern Presbyterians were in lock-step agreement on full-subscription, no-exception belief in the Westminster Standards. Anybody who has spent any time at all reading them knows that this is not accurate. Yes, the major figures, at least, were all ardent Calvinists and did not waver on Biblical authority or the major doctrines. But they also reflected the diversity of any significant school of Reformed theology. Especially on secondary points of theology. Smith does not do these good men a service by artifically restricting their very interesting theologies.

Another problem is that Smith seems to have gathered poor information on some of the minor figures. But this does not stop him from making conclusions which he has not demonstrated. Smith will state things like this (I'm making this example up): *Dr. Jones taught at Union Seminary from 1902-04. He did not publish any articles. But we know he must have been an advocate of full subscription to the Westminster Confession and a 24-hour day creationist because he taught at Union. In addition, this author's uncle once took a course from him and commented that Dr. Jones was a fine conservative gentleman.* Give me a break!

Further, Dr. Smith lets his disdain for the Northern U.S. show every so often and this really doesn't help his case.

This book did help me gain some insight into Dr.Smith's attitude in his denominational politics. I can see where the rigidity comes from.

Anyway, I did read this book cover-to-cover and even bought a second copy for my church office. I loved the topic, the orderliness of the book's arrangement, the Reformed theology, and the attractive packaging, but I found the scholarship to be weak and the poor documentation to be very sad.