Dominic Robinson constructs a theological anthropology which is critical, historical and ecumenical. By interacting with three prominent theologians on the topic of the imago Dei, Robinson carefully engages the dialectical tensions found throughout ecclesiastical tradition. He concludes in favour of the imago Dei as a kind of human narrative drawing together the two poles – Christ's descent and our ascent with Christ – thus satisfying Rome and Geneva (p. 159).

Naturally, Robinson begins in the historical discussion on the scripture's portrayal of the imago Dei. Robinson highlights the early church fathers’ emphasis on man's desire for God, journey back to God, and balances this with the Protestant-Reformation emphasis upon man's inability to satisfy God because of sin. Robinson concludes by leading the reader to consider three figures who provide fertile soil for an ecumenically satisfying imago Dei – Barth, Balthasar and Moltmann (chapter 1). He begins with Barth's pessimistic and ‘sombre’ view of man and argues that Barth provides ecumenical potential through relational ontology of God's concrete activity in Christ. Robinson argues that Barth's view leaves man passive in the process, yet Barth tills the ground for man's dynamic quest towards God (chapter 2). Balthasar, according to Robinson, with due respect for Barth, builds on this positive foundation (p. 103). This, then, allows for a constructive development whereby man's dignity is upheld, his internal journey is maintained, and his emphasis on the natural and supernatural are united in Christ's relation to man (p. 124). Robinson exposits Balthasar's ability to maintain the Augustinian emphasis on Christ's necessary descent to man and Gregory of Nyssa's emphasis upon man's movement towards God through a drama – similar to Irenaeus (p. 94). This narrative finds a unity in the aesthetic and vocational role humans play (see p. 119 and p. 124 in chapter 3). Robinson considers one final thinker, namely Moltmann, in the Protestant-Reformed tradition as similar to Barth and Balthasar's relational emphasis. Moltmann, nevertheless, has difficulty sustaining the transcendence of God – to which man is to ascend and lacks the notion of Christ as saviour (see p. 154; chapter 4). Robinson concludes in favour of Balthasar and Roman Catholicism as ecumenically satisfying (chapter 5). Robinson's strengths clearly live in his masterful interaction with ecclesiastical history. On a minor note, there is one criticism of the book.

Robinson's philosophical assumptions and methodology need an appropriate grounding. There are numerous points where one will read Robinson utilising ‘vague’ categories and fuzzy boundaries regarding human persons. For example, it is difficult to determine what is being communicated in terms of an ‘internal journey’, ‘dignity’, and ‘relations’ – call these the desiderata for an ecumenical theology of human beings. Robinson gives no clear definition or description of what ‘an internal journey’ means. Internal journey might make coherent sense in terms of persons as individual and distinct substance. Related to this concern is Robinson's discussion of dignity. Robinson seems to describe dignity as man's being externally related to Christ, but this is vague. However, it appears that Robinson desires to press into the internal dignity and grounds for man's participation in God, which requires a substance. The modern emphasis on relations seems to lack the stative emphasis found throughout ecclesiastical thought. It seems to me that what is lacking in modern thought and Robinson's constructive development is a substantive ontology with intrinsic teleology as seen in the East, medieval thought and Protestant scholasticism. In keeping more closely with the tradition, a substance ontology may help Robinson clarify and ground his ecumenical desires. Despite this minor criticism, the reader will benefit from Robinson's contribution to the imago Dei discussion.