Michael Martin provides a valuable service in writing this introduction to the Christian Sophiological tradition of the post-Reformation West (including the Russians of the 19th and 20th century). However, Martin's main thesis is, perhaps out of his own desire to reflect in a supra-rational manner, appears to be lost amid his desire to expose the reader to all the varieties of Sophiological thought he knows of.
His first chapter seeking to outline the narrative of "a loss of the sacred" is both enlightening and rather biased. His main culprit is Reason, manifested primarily in scholasticism and the teachings of Natura Pura and Nominalism. While Nominalism is almost universally accepted as a cause for the break down in the sense of the sacred - refusing to admit the reality of universals and shared nature, but only giving names (nomen, thus NOMINalism) to arbitrary groupings - the Natura Pura debate is alive and well. Martin simply sidelines anyone who would dare think the scholastic idea of Natura Pura is anything other than an attempt to validate deism - a point which is simply ignorant at worst or uncharitable at best. There may be problems with some of the Natura Pura narrative, but to toss out most every scholastic thinker after Thomas (who is somehow acceptable, though his followers are not) seems to be far too hasty. His outline of post-reformation developments, especially regarding the philosophical movement of Descartes, Kant and that lineage and the scientific developments of the enlightenment are quite good. I would have liked to see some discussion of political shifts, though, especially as Sophiology is supposed to be the integral science/"poetic metaphysics" par excellence.
The following chapters, the rest of the book really, which seek to outline a counter-enlightenment narrative following various sophiological thinkers, is of mixed quality. Martin is clearly a poetic soul and is quick to grasp onto ambiguities with great gusto, but I question if this is a trait shared by many. This is most powerfully highlighted in his discussion of Jakob Bohme, considered a primary source of this sophiological counter-narrative. Bohme, to this reader, if he makes any sense, cloaks it in a lexicon unique unto himself, making it incoherent to all but those who can quickly indulge his poetic eccentricities (like Martin) or are willing to sit down and devote a good chunk of one's life to decoding him. This comes out in Martin who delights in giving you quotes of Bohme with commentary that appears to be "this inspires me to think of..." rather than any actual aid in understanding the quote.
This sort of commentary continues, though the writers after Bohme are much more understandable on their own. What this offers is a look at writers who have been greatly moved by the biblical images of wisdom or some great insight into the integral unity of creation. These are no more than tastes, but it offers the reader a chance to figure out if these writers are offering something they wish to pursue. Admittedly, none of the writers I was introduced to left me desiring to look them up, but that may be more because my own tastes do not parallel Martin's - ecological science and Romantic Germanic-English poetry.
For the theologian and philosopher, the most intriguing figures are the Russian sophiologists. However, Martin's hangup with reason leaves him giving them a suspiciously cold shoulder even as he is forced to highlight how they have taken sophiological thought out of the ghetto and made it something more respectable than obscurantist theosophy or poetic musings. This is especially the case with Sergius Bulgakov, who Martin, even while citing the praise and respect the man gets even from intellectual enemies, believes almost defaces Sophiology by placing it in the theological paradigm.
Martin really shows his hand in an attempt to locate a "Catholic Sophiology". His candidates are the disgraced and perpetually "on his way to rehabilitation" scientist-priest Teillard de Chardin and the perennially loved, but may have been a heretic in the end, Thomas Merton. He does not look to either's theological work - not touching de Chardin's ideas of the Omega Point or Merton's mysticism which, while originally quite edifying, became tainted with oriental ideas in the end - he chooses to look at the poetry of each. This is Martin's field of choice, of course, but Martin doesn't offer much in the way of commentary, but again just gives little interesting bits of discussion.
Martin's ultimate sophiological writer is the [heterodox] Catholic and ex-anthroposophist, Valentin Tomberg. Tomberg's major work, Meditations on the Tarot, is incredibly interesting in a fashion. Martin doesn't hide its oddities (but ignores some egregious ones, like Tomberg's belief in reincarnation), but doesn't do more than present its ideas, especially the sophiological. He says no more about it than it being there and it being fascinating.
This may be the primary fault of the book. Martin is reaching for the stars ("Sophiology can ultimately return us to a sense of the sacred"), but never builds the ladder to get there. He refuses to allow his darling sophiology to be tainted by reason, but this ultimately leaves it nebulous, ambiguous, and open to a variety of interpretations. He clearly wishes to distance himself from the neo-feminist readings of the sophia texts as a goddess or other mare radical readings. However, this is not an answer to what he does make of them and the rest of this "sophiological tradition." He offers nothing more substantive than "There's something to this stuff.
For those interested in sophiology, I recommend going right to those who Martin gives the cold shoulder to - Vladimir Solovyov and Sergius Bulgakov. The Russians are by no means perfect, but they offer something to actually think and reflect on. And one should not be fearful of reason. According to Martin, Sophiology is all about integrating all of our power, in fact integrating all the world. Reason is part of this. Working with it may be more helpful than trying and finding a way to ignore it.