Hauerwas writes that he would rather be wrong than boring. "Boring" is an unlikely description of his work to date, and these 2001 Gifford lectures are true to form. Hauerwas begins with a critique of the rationale for the lectures, established to promote the study of natural theology understood as a basis "on which to test the rationality of theology proper." He then offers critical readings of three predecessors--William James, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Karl Barth--before turning to his now familiar vision of a countercultural Christianity and its less familiar implications for the shape of the university. Hauerwas is closest to Barth; he will surprise some readers by the close connection he argues between Niebuhr and James. He joins Barth in a resounding "no" to any natural theology disconnected from "witness," which he places in the context of a post-Constantinian church exemplified by John Howard Yoder, Dorothy Day, and (surprisingly) John Paul II. Hauerwas is always good for a good argument, and, like John Milbank, he criticizes theology's "false humility" for sidetracking such argument in modernity. "Humility" is an even less likely descriptor than "boredom" for Hauerwas's style; readers can expect a forceful argument that is also an entertaining and illuminating discussion--not a big book, but a significant one.