Bradley Green's Colin Gunton and the Failure of Augustine is a sound contribution both to contemporary theology and Augustinian studies. Originally his doctoral dissertation, the book examines the thought of respected British theologian Colin Gunton, well known for his criticism of St. Augustine, defending Augustine and constructively critiquing Gunton. Many have questioned Gunton's reading of Augustine in recent years, and in this work Green stands with Augustine while extending a hand to Gunton, urging him to reconsider Augustine and find in him not a foe but a friend.

According to Green, “The purpose of this monograph is to offer an analysis of key components of Gunton's thought in light of the Trinitarian theology of Augustine as seen in his De Trinitate. To that end, the monograph seeks to come to grips with the Trinitarian theology of Augustine, and to ask if Gunton's largely negative assessment of Augustine can stand up to scrutiny” (p. 8).

Chapter one introduces Gunton's view that key problems in contemporary Western thought are largely Augustinian problems. Gunton argues that Augustine simply lacked the “'conceptual equipment' to avoid such heresies as Arianism and modalism, and therefore the Western tradition has struggled with such heresies” (p. 3). Gunton has two major criticisms: (1) Augustine attempted to fuse neoplatonic and Christian categories, resulting in a dualism between the material and ideal; (2) Augustine “squandered the Cappadocian ontology,” which emphasized the community of the Trinity (p. 4). The repercussions seen today according to Gunton are too much emphasis on “oneness” over and against “threeness” in Trinitarian theology, failure to incorporate the communion of the Trinity into ecclesiology, an overemphasis of “One” culturally that led to Modernity, and radical oneness politically that has often associated Christians with repression (p. 5). Following this introduction to Gunton, Green outlines the major contours of how Augustine's teaching on the Trinity has been received from Anselm to Zizoulas.

Chapter two explains Gunton's doctrines of creation and redemption. Gunton's strong doctrine of creation leads him to deeply criticize Augustine on this point. Gunton argues that Augustine's neoplatonist baggage and overemphasis on “One” leads to severing creation from redemption.

Chapter three considers being and ontology in Gunton. Gunton argues for recovering a Cappadocian ontology that teaches that “relationality, or communion constitutes 'being,' and supposedly this is an achievement ignored or not understood by Augustine” (p. 69). Gunton argues that Martyr, Irenaeus, Athanasius, Basil, and the Cappadocians developed a truly Christian ontology that was squandered by both Origen and Augustine. The Cappadocians understood the Trinity not as “relations” but as “concrete particulars in relation to one another, ' and being in relation constitutes what it actually means to be a person'” (p. 75). This, in Gunton's view, is a fresh way of seeing God in communion that is not “hostage to Greek metaphysics.” Gunton contends that the Cappadocian understanding of God also provides us with a better, indeed more Trinitarian, way of viewing reality.

Chapters four and five respond to Gunton's criticisms by allowing Augustine to speak for himself, primarily from De Trinitate. Concerning creation and redemption, Green explains Augustine's notion of creation ex nihilo as a fully Trinitarian act that strongly responds to the problem of evil. Concerning dualism, Green affirms dualism in Augustine but qualifies it as a “limited dualism” where both matter and spirit are good, though the latter is superior. Nevertheless, physical creation plays a crucial role in man's coming to know God, not least seen in the incarnation of Christ. Green writes, “The only way to the vision of God is through a bloody, human body” (p. 132). Thus, though there may still exist too much dualism for Gunton's taste, it is inaccurate to say that the relationship between creation and redemption has been severed.

Further, concerning being and ontology, Green argues that one must remember the goal of De Trinitate-to see God face to face. Green notes that if Augustine stopped with the goal of the mind being to remember, understand, and love itself, Gunton's critiques would be more persuasive. But ” in Augustine's thought man is most fully human when he is actively focused outward on God. . . . To truly image God in the fullest sense man must be focused in a loving relationship on another-God” (p. 200).

Chapters six and seven summarize Green's critiques of Gunton and conclude the work. Green clearly defends Augustine beckoning Gunton to join forces, but the purpose of his book is not to defeat Gunton's work altogether. Rather, Green seeks to ask critical questions of how Gunton understands and represents Augustine.

The strengths of the work are the sound summary of Gunton's thought in chapters one and two and the robust defense of Augustine in chapters six and seven. At times, however, especially concerning creation, one wonders if Green is slightly overemphasizing Augustine's creation friendliness. Also while Green does draw on more than De Trinitate, further consideration of the development of Augustine's doctrines of creation and ontology from his early to mature thought could have enriched the study.

Nonetheless, Green's work is laudable as he holds Gunton's feet to the fire regarding his reading of Augustine, and he skillfully unshackles Augustine from Gunton's grip while attempting to forge a friendship between them. Green's book beckons for further research, especially concerning how Augustine speaks today. Green concludes, “If Christian theology is to speak today with a meaningful message, it will be because it has spent time with figures like Augustine, and has learned from the experience” (p. 206).

---