‘There is, then, a wide variety of approaches to the study of Pauline ethics, sometimes complementary, sometimes opposed, sometimes simply different’(p. 45). This is Horrell's conclusion to the survey of approaches to Pauline ethics that constitutes the first chapter of his new book. His own aim is clear: he sets out to engage Pauline thought with contemporary ethical theory, specifically Jürgen Habermas's Discourse Ethics and Stanley Hauerwas's Ecclesial Ethics. Horrell has chosen well. Habermas and Hauerwas are excellent representatives of liberal and communitarian ethical positions, even if neither of them encompasses all that is entailed by either position.

The bulk of Horrell's study is taken up with a description and analysis of the central elements of Pauline ethics. He argues that the ‘meta-norms’ of Paul's ethics are most concisely described as the imperative of corporate solidarity and regard for the other. Within his discussion he offers a useful critique of other attempts to synthesize Pauline ethics, as well as comparing his analysis at all stages with Habermas's and Hauerwas's approaches to ethical discourse. It will come as no surprise for the reader to discover that Horrell concludes that Hauerwas's approach is much closer to Paul's than Habermas’s.

Perhaps the main strength of Horrell's work is the fact that he is not overly dogmatic in finding correspondence between Paul and the contemporary ethical theories he is engaging with. Thus, in Horrell's view, Paul's injunction to ‘do good’ to outsiders and his recognition of the divinely ordained nature of non-Christian governing authorities challenges Hauerwas's exclusive focus on ethics as internal to the Church. Furthermore he notes that in Romans 14–15 and 1 Corinthians 8–10, when Paul most fully constructs a moral argument, his main concern is not to resolve the substantive ethical issue under dispute but rather to construct a moral framework of other-regard in a context of communal solidarity, within which a degree of diversity and difference can remain. Horrell contrasts this with Hauerwas's polemic against liberalism and insistence on his readers taking a particular ethical stance. Horrell argues that in this stress on an individual's right to choose their own vision of good life within certain absolute limits, Paul's ethics are similar to Habermas’s, since both allow for tolerance within a framework of intolerance. Where they differ is in their intolerance: Paul insists on Christ alone as the basis for corporate-solidarity, but within Habermas's Discourse Ethics mutual agreement and discourse are required to determine the boundaries of tolerance. Thus Horrell finds points of solidarity and difference between Pauline ethics and both Habermas's and Hauerwas's ethics.

Solidarity and Difference is a stimulating read that is slightly let down by its forgone conclusion that Paul is closer to Hauerwas than Habermas. Horrell provides an masterful analysis of Pauline ethics and successfully elucidates many of the key themes. Within his discussion of corporate solidarity, it is striking that he does not engage much with the Pauline idea of being ‘in Christ’, a somewhat surprising omission. Although Horrell does engage with all the undisputed Pauline material he inevitably focuses mainly on Romans and 1 Corinthians, a move which although probably necessary is slightly disappointing. But overall Solidarity and Difference is an excellent survey of Pauline ethics that successfully engages Pauline thought with contemporary ethical theory, and as such Horrell has achieved his stated aim in writing this book.