Summaries / Resúmenes - Studia Moralia

REVIEWS / RECENSIONES 511the dangers of defensiveness” (p. 164). Chapter ten, “Realism,Identity, and Self-Defense” (pp.183-202), places Ramsey, Hauerwas,and Gustafson in dialogue with Tanner to show that they offerrespectively “…a conversionism that is too conservative, a Christianidentity that is insufficiently open, and a theology that too readilygives up on distinctively Christian modes of discourse” (p. 183). Inthis discussion, many of Niebuhr’s ideas provide key insights thatguide the discussion.By way of conclusion, the final chapter, “Eight Theses forTheological Ethics” (pp. 203-224), offers a response to the eight questionsraised in chapter one. The author develops these theses fromthe dialogue he has fashioned between Niebuhr and these four representativewriters of American Protestant ethics. His theses are genuinecontributions to contemporary Christian ethics in their ownright and invite careful examination. As the author himself says, “Ihave tried to write a critical conversation between Christian thinkerswho differ in many things but share a common, very complex legacy.The conversation moves theological ethics forward, as doesNiebuhr’s recommended communal, situated wrestling with theissue of Christ and culture” (p. 220).The book offers an excellent presentation of Niebuhr’s thoughtand a careful analysis of some of the most important themes ofAmerican Protestant ethics. It demonstrates the major strengths andweaknesses of each of the authors considered and points to Niebuhr’sconsiderable influence on twentieth- and twenty-first-centuryAmerican thought. This reviewer was especially impressed with theauthor’s examination of Hauerwas’s and John Howard Yoder’s criticismof Niebuhr’s seminal work, Christ and Culture (pp. 103-13). Hewas also impressed with the way the author used Hans Frei’s typologyof Christian theology to examine Niebuhr’s approach to theology(pp. 143-48) and with his use of Tanner to point out possible weaknessesin Ramsey, Hauerwas, and Gustafson (pp. 184-200). The bookwould have been helped by a brief biographical and bibliographicalessay on Niebuhr’s work, especially since, as the author himselfpoints out, he lived most of his life in the shadow of his older brother,Reinhold (p. 15). It also would have benefited by more emphasison the major formative influences on Niebuhr himself and on theway his own thinking developed during his thirty-one years tenure atYale.DENNIS J. BILLY, C.SS.R.