This is a good book on an important subject. It is concerned with Anglican social theology but has important repercussions for the whole Christian community. This is a theme that has been seriously neglected by the formal corporate life of the Church of England at a time when the wider community are crying out for help in understanding our changing social order and seeking new ways for the future life of our communities and our planet.

Stephen Spencer and Susan Lucas have contributed substantive reflections on William Temple and his legacy as it might affect the challenges we face today. Jeremy Morris and Alison Milbank have done the same at the outset of the book on F D Maurice. Wedged between is an interesting article on the work of Octavia Hill and a typically thorough piece of theological history by Paul Avis on Westcott, Scott Holland and Gore, filling in the gap between Maurice and Temple. There is a typically thought-provoking piece by Malcolm Brown on the possible direction of Anglican social theology for our time, a very interesting essay from Matthew Bullimore on the choice and balance between public and ecclesial theology as the appropriate route in for such thought, and a final piece by Peter Manley Scott on where we might be going in all of this.

This last piece is the least satisfactory of the essays because it is obvious that no one has a clue where the Church is going. Why is it that we still cannot get beyond Temple or, if I might add, people like Reinhold Niebuhr and R H Tawney? All were giants of the twentieth century who had a profound influence on public life and those caught up in the politics of the mid-twentieth century. The reason they had such an impact is because they addressed the central challenges of their time in a way which communicated both with people in public life and with the aspirations and concerns of the wider community. Temple not only held a position that opened the door for serious leadership in this field but he had a great gift in bringing people together to think and work and hammer out common themes. Niebuhr, facing the challenge of power in the heart of the twentieth century, provided an ethical and spiritual structure for democracy and the principled control of the institutions of power. Tawney helped shape the Labour Party's manifesto and thinking while it was still in the wilderness in the 1930s. Who is doing this work in the context of our own very different time? Why is the Church not encouraging such work and promoting it? Until we prioritise this work, it will do us no good fussing about the number of bums on pews.

I hope these essays might stir up the inner life of the Church. In these dangerous, exciting and confusing times we need to build our witness on these principled foundations.