David B. HUNSICKER, The Making of Stanley Hauerwas: Bridging Barth and Postliberalism. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2019. pp. 248. $36 pb. ISBN 9780830849161. Reviewed by Alessandro ROVATI, Belmont Abbey College, Belmont, NC 28054.

David B. Hunsicker's book is the latest addition to the growing field of monographs that engage the theology of prominent theologian Stanley Hauerwas. It does so by exploring the relationship between Hauerwas and Barth and probing some of the most prominent criticisms of Hauerwas' work. In the process, Hunsicker unpacks Hauerwas' self-description as a Barthian theologian, highlighting both how this description is correct and how it risks making us blind to important differences between his approach and Barth's.

The book is divided into three parts. In the first, "The Making of a Barthian Postliberal," the author describes Hauerwas' formation and how various theologians shaped his vision. The story Hunsicker tells is engaging and clearly written, and it provides a helpful framework to those unfamiliar with the roots and ongoing development of Hauerwas' theology. Scholars who are familiar with Hauerwas' work will also benefit from Hunsicker's account because no one has ever provided such a detailed description of Barth's influence over Hauerwas. Furthermore, I found Hunsicker's reflections on the continuous impact of H. Richard Niebuhr's The Meaning of Revelation and of James McClendon's Convictions on Hauerwas' theology to be novel and profoundly insightful.

The second part, "The Schleiermacher Thesis Examined," explores and probes the criticism that Hauerwas focuses on the church at the expense of the doctrine of God, privileges human agency over divine agency, and collapses theology into anthropology. The third part, "The Ritschl Thesis Examined," focuses on the critics claiming that Hauerwas considers Scripture as a guidebook to the church's activity rather than a witness to God's action and that he replaces Barth's Christocentrism with ecclesiology. In considering these critiques, Hunsicker provides a comprehensive account of Barth's and Hauerwas' theology, guiding the reader to the heart of their respective proposals and the interactions among them. Overall, Hunsicker presents a sympathetic reading of Hauerwas that pushes back against the misunderstandings of his work while, at the same time, remaining honest about the tensions and ambiguities that are present in it.

As the book's title suggests, the author's core thesis is that Hauerwas is best described as a Barthian postliberal. He is Barthian because he has learned from Barth that dogmatics and ethics need to be kept together and that all theology needs to be grounded in Christology. He is postliberal because Hauerwas is more interested than Barth in the concrete consequences of Christian convictions and thus focuses on the church's way of forming individual witnesses to the gospel through its liturgical practices. Being a Barthian postliberal entails moving beyond Barth without ever leaving his Christological dogmatics behind. In fact, Hunsicker argues that even Hauerwas' disagreements with Barth are rooted in a more profound agreement, namely, their shared rejection of Protestant liberalism and their recognition of the centrality of Jesus' work and person.

Hunsicker does not think that Hauerwas treats ecclesiology as an independent theological focal point outside Christology, as some of his critics have claimed. At the same time, though, Hunsicker does worry that Hauerwas' tendency toward ecclesiocentrism can overly emphasize human agency and obscure the Scripture's witness to divine agency. Hunsicker also suggests that Hauerwas has, at times, downplayed the differences between him and Barth. For example, Hauerwas has a much more Catholic understanding of the relationship between Scripture and the church and of how the church's agency cooperates with the action of the Spirit. It is up to Hauerwas, the author argues, to further show us how these breaks with Barth do not bring him back to the liberal Protestant collapse of the divine into the church.

Hunsicker's work succeeds where many monographs fail. It combines a depth of research and analysis with an accessible and engaging style, it provides the reader with a clear map of the theology of the authors considered while avoiding oversimplifications, and it opens new conversations and paths of inquiry. I recommend the book both to people who want to explore the theologies of Barth and Hauerwas for the first time and to those who are already conversant in them and want to think along and beyond the author.