Contemporary scholarship, both theological and otherwise, reveals a considerable diversity of practices and conclusions. In this book, Sloane seeks to provide an explanation for this plurality of scholarship by utilising the theory of rationality developed by Wolterstorff.

An obviously sympathetic commentator, Sloane attempts to show how Wolterstorff provides the best way to arbitrate between a range of theories, particularly within the scientific disciplines. To do so, he first outlines Wolterstorff’s critique of the two main alternatives of foundationalism and relativism. Having demonstrated the flaws in these alternatives, Sloane turns in Part Two to a positive exposition of Wolterstorff’s rationality, where he identifies three main features: it is empirically rooted; it is situated and non-absolutist; it is rational and non-relativist.

Sloane then examines how Wolterstorff’s rationality is worked out in a meta-theory, which provides an explanation for the plurality of scholarship. Wolterstorff’s meta-theory, he argues, allows Christian scholarship to be faithful, rather than needing to be different (126). The belief-content of a Christian’s ‘authentic commitment’ ought to function as the control by which other theories are weighed. It is the existence of different ‘control beliefs’ that gives rise to plurality in scholarship.

A discussion of Wolterstorff’s ‘heuristics of shalom’ follows, presenting an agenda for the kind of scholarship in which Christians ought to be engaged. This is identified as that which is orientated towards the practical outworking of ‘justice-in-shalom’, requiring an attentive ear to both the prophetic word of the Bible and the cry of the poor and marginalised. This section alone makes this book an invaluable resource for all who are embarking upon, or involved with academic scholarship of any kind, but perhaps particularly theological study.

Part Three comprises Sloane’s own defence of Wolterstorff’s rationality, particularly against the charge of relativism. However, his success in doing so may be questioned. There appears to be a fine line between the pluralist conclusions of Wolterstorff and those of Kuhn, for instance, whom Sloane identifies as a relativist. Sloane has argued that ‘there are situations in which truth is not our primary concern’ (104), which may lead more easily to a situational relativism than he would like to admit. His description of Wolterstorff as a ‘non-foundationalist’ (204), rather than what would seem to be the more obviously relevant ‘post-foundationalist’, means it is difficult to see whether Wolterstorff has indeed managed to avoid relativism.

This book, as is expected from the series, shows significant engagement with the main players of the epistemology debate, particularly those surrounding the Reformed Epistemology camp. Sloane’s outline of Wolterstorff would serve as a reasonably adequate introduction to his thought, although the book is at its best in critically relating Wolterstorff to the work of others such as Kuhn, Lakatos, Quine and Reid.

Considering that this began as part of a ThD thesis discussing differing interpretations of Genesis 1–3, and in light of the book’s subtitle, there is surprisingly little recourse to the biblical narrative, although in the conclusion Sloane does turn to the implications of his findings for choosing between biblical reading strategies. While this is a work of philosophical theology, it must be considered from an evangelical perspective whether more attention ought to be paid to the voice of Scripture as a guide for ‘the practice of Christian scholarship’.

This book provides a stimulating and thorough examination of the issues surrounding the practice of scholarship in a pluralistic environment. It raises vital questions for all involved in academic research concerning the goal of their work, while also being a significant contribution to the search for a cogent epistemology for today’s world.