Augustinian voice is that she takes love seriously. In fact, taking sin seriously and taking injustice seriously are predicated on taking love seriously’ (p. 179; see also Meilaender, p. 173). The analysis of this chapter moves from what Gregory dubs Augustine’s ‘better realism’ in politics, to consider its implications for contemporary issues of torture and ‘coercive interrogation’ (pp. 184–85), and international humanitarian intervention (pp. 185–87), especially as Elshtain comments on these implications in her writings and as her Catholic faith, embraced at the end of her life, might have moved her to reassess some of them (p. 185). Daniel Philpott’s chapter follows Gregory’s and returns our attention to Elshtain’s Sovereignty. Where Meilaender contextualized Elshtain’s thought within a plurality of Christian traditions (especially Lutheranism and Catholicism, sensitive to their differences, yet highlighting their common core of faith expressed in the Athanasian Creed), and Gregory reflected on Elshtain’s Augustinianism, Philpott emphasizes what he considers the Thomistic elements in Elshtain’s political thought. Asking what ‘alternative’ Elshtain offers readers to the autonomous, self-legislating sovereign ruler or sovereign self of modernity, Philpott answers pithily: ‘Thomism’, which locates limited human sovereignty under ‘a transcendent God’, and views it as intended to be ‘informed [and guided] by natural law’ (p. 192). From there, Philpott’s essay travels through the histories of modern sovereignty and of international relations theory. In so doing, Philpott reflects on and lauds Elshtain’s contribution to reviving religion as an important actor and rightful subject of study within political science and international relations. This engaging trio of chapters, together with numerous others in Erikson’s and Chevallier’s fine volume, thus evoke what their authors see as Elshtain’s scholarly achievements, and also raise interpretive and evaluative questions about Elshtain’s thought. They point out directions that future scholarship might follow to extend Elshtain’s research and inquiry, and to correct some of her conclusions as well, perhaps in key ways. For assistance in these tasks scholars of several disciplines can thank the editors of this volume on Elshtain’s religious, ethical and political thought.

中文翻译：

---

书评：乔恩·加维，上帝的大地：未堕落的创造的案例查德·迈克尔·里默，绿化上帝的孩子：托马斯·特拉赫恩和大自然在儿童生态形成中的作用

奥古斯丁的声音是她认真对待爱情。事实上，认真对待罪恶和认真对待不公正的前提是认真对待爱”（第 179 页；另见梅兰德，第 173 页）。本章的分析从格雷戈里所说的奥古斯丁在政治上的“更好的现实主义”转向考虑其对当代酷刑和“强制审讯”（第 184-85 页）和国际人道主义干预（第 185-87 页）问题的影响)，尤其是 Elshtain 在她的著作中对这些含义的评论，以及她在生命结束时接受的天主教信仰，可能会促使她重新评估其中的一些 (p. 185)。Daniel Philpott 的章节跟随 Gregory 的章节，让我们重新关注 Elshtain 的主权。梅兰德将埃尔什坦的思想置于多种基督教传统（尤其是路德教和天主教，对它们的差异敏感，但强调了他们在亚他那修信条中表达的共同信仰核心）中的背景，而格雷戈里则反思了埃尔什坦的奥古斯丁主义，菲尔波特则强调了他认为的托马斯主义埃尔什坦政治思想中的要素。当问到 Elshtain 为现代性的自主、自我立法的主权统治者或主权自我提供什么“替代”时，Philpott 简洁地回答：“托马斯主义”，它将有限的人类主权置于“超越的上帝”之下，并将其视为有意为之“受自然法的通知 [和指导]”（第 192 页）。从那里，菲尔波特的文章穿越了现代主权和国际关系理论的历史。这样做时，Philpott 反思并赞扬了 Elshtain 对复兴宗教的贡献，将其作为政治科学和国际关系领域的重要参与者和合法研究主题。这三章引人入胜的章节，连同埃里克森和谢瓦利埃的著作中的许多其他章节，唤起了作者眼中的埃尔什坦的学术成就，同时也对埃尔什坦的思想提出了解释性和评价性的问题。他们指出了未来学术可能遵循的方向，以扩展 Elshtain 的研究和探究，并可能以关键方式纠正她的一些结论。对于这些任务的帮助，多个学科的学者可以感谢本书关于 Elshtain 的宗教、伦理和政治思想的编辑。