Scott Rae’s approach to Christian ethics is standard evangelical ethics, which is a strength and a weakness. It’s a strength in that he rightly opposes secular schemas for ethics and helps us understand why those are incompatible with Christianity. On abortion, euthanasia, LGBT+, etc, he’s generally very clear, as are most evangelicals. Business ethics is an exception, as something that evangelicals generally don’t think much about, but Rae brings a lot of clarity it.
However, as soon as Rae begins talking about something evangelicals disagree about, he either takes the most conventional approach or sidesteps the issue completely. In my opinion, his reasoning about IVF, birth control, and the purpose of sex is missing fundamental moral categories, and the biblical support is weak. Not talking about divorce seems like a glaring omission. And when it comes to an issue like capital punishment, he just gives different options and leaves it at that. It’d also be interesting to do a word count on how many times he uses the word “seems” (i.e. this “seems” to imply…) instead of simply making his point.
One could argue that it’s only an introduction, so he can’t argue for each topic, but he has no problem arguing that transgenderism is unbiblical. Is it really helpful to only argue for the things your target audience already agrees with? It’s only on controversial issues among evangelicals he seems unwilling to counter the status quo or offer an opinion about.
In addition, while he’s clear that God’s design for marriage is heterosexual monogamy, he states that sexual orientation is “morally neutral,” which is misleading at best. This type of thinking lacks deep moral reasoning with broader, more holistic categories. Engagement with the Christian tradition would greatly help, but there’s only one mention of Augustine on Just War Theory (because he invented it). This is insufficient.
I don’t mean for this to be a negative review. There is a lot of good in this book. And we need more evangelical ethicists. I’m thankful for Scott Rae. And I’m sure he is much more thorough in the larger book, “Moral Choices,” of which this seems to be a shorter summary.
But my primary contention is this: a Christian ethicist must be somewhat of a troublemaker, challenging the moral sensibilities of his own people, not capitulating to them, otherwise he ceases to have anything worthwhile to say—not that he should be an unnecessary troublemaker or enjoy conflict—but that he should be an example of wisdom and courage, come what may.
I wish he showed a bit more of that here in this book.