LIBERTY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF DIVINITY
Book Critique of
Reviving Evangelical Ethics: The Promises and Pitfalls of Classic Models of Morality
by Wyndy Corbin Reuschling
Submitted to Dr. Malcolm Hester,
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the completion of
THEO 650 – B02
Ethics and Christian Ministry
by
Joshua Cottrell
February 13, 2019
Introduction
As the Christian community in the 20th century has become a powerhouse in the
American political arena attempting to turn the tide toward Christian morals and causes, Wyndy
Corbin Reuschling believes that it is time to evaluate exactly what is meant by Christian ethics.
In Reviving Evangelical Ethics: The Promises and Pitfalls of Classic Models of Morality, the
author seeks to look at the three popular models of ethics or morality, “….deontology, teleology,
and virtue ethics” 1 and look at their influence on evangelicalism’s moral code. Reuschling says,
“I find the unilateral, uncritical, and unqualified acceptance of these theories particularly
problematic in that it risks stripping Christian ethics of its uniqueness and particularity,,,”.2 The
author’s thesis is that these three models have shaped evangelicalism more than the, “ethics
according to Jesus Christ and the church he formed and continues to form”, and that His work
rather should be the “normative for Christian ethics.”3 This paper will look at each chapter in
summary, focus the strength and weakness found therein, and whether they support the author’s
overall goal of reclaiming evangelical ethics.
Summary
Reuschling in chapter 1, provides descriptions of three classical theories on ethics. First,
Kant taught deontology or duty, “where the weight of moral focus is on the rule or prescription.”4
The author says, “Kant’s moral theory provides a way to view the Bible and select teachings as
simply a bunch of rules to be obeyed.”5 Reushchling spends a great deal on this being too
1 Wyndy Corbin Reuschling, Reviving Evangelical Ethics: The Promises and Pitfalls of Classic Models of
Morality (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Brazos Press, 2008), MyWSB, Introduction.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.
4 Ibid, Chapter 1.
5 Ibid.
simplistic a view and that it allows for avoidance of “messy” subjects because you must always
follow the rules and everyone must be treated equally.6 While there is a biblical basis for always
obeying to the letter, i.e. The Ten Commandments, specifically those were given to show that the
letter of the law cannot always be maintained even with the best of intentions. Relying on
obedience to rules puts more faith in the rulebook than in the Creator or architect of the book.
Secondly, John Stuart Mills taught the principles of teleology, “an understanding of ethics
that places the moral burden on the outcome of a decision.”7 Teleology says the best ethical
solution is helping the greatest amount of people or minimizing the hurt to the smallest number.8
Reuschling says that, “For Mill, justice is the establishment and protection of human society so
that happiness may be achieved.”9 Reuschling wrongly supposes the adoption of teleology to be
the driving force behind “pursuit of happiness” in the Constitution, while she bashes evangelicals
for believing America is a Christian nation.10 Many of those phrases were included with an
understanding of scripture forming those words with the intent to honor God. Mark David Hall
says, “…the Founders referenced the Bible more than all Enlightenment authors combined.”11
Lastly, Reuschling speaks of the virtue ethics of Aristotle. Virtue ethics “concentrates on
the question “What kind of moral character is needed, and what kind of moral character will be
shaped by my actions and behaviors?””12 Virtue can be looked at through the lens of character,
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid.
11 Mark David Hall, "Did America Have a Christian Founding?" The Heritage Foundation, ,
accessed February 12, 2019, https://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/did-america-have-
christian-founding.
12 Reuschling, Reviving Evangelical Ethics, Chapter 1.
thus having good character will make a person more “right with God.” The author rightly states
that, “Moral character is not guaranteed by one’s right relationship with God or by one’s sense of
personal piety.”13 The weakness of her argument is that her assertion that virtue is “learned,
nurtured, talked about”14 for that might lead a person back to relying on deontology.
In Chapter 2, discusses specifically the Kant theory of duty. In discussing this theory
throughout the chapter, she equates “trusting and obeying” to duty and Kant’s theory rather that
where the true source should come from and that is love. Reuschling says, “We may purport to
believe in scripture’s authority, but our reading strategies and actual use may say otherwise.”15
While that is extremely convicting and make for a great sermon that in no means is more
authoritative than the Bible’s command in Proverbs 3:5 to “Trust in the Lord….and lean not unto
thy own understanding.” While duty can lead to Christians that erroneously put faith in the duty,
there are certain those that follow no command because they are rebellious and do not want to
obey the command of duty. The main issue with Kant’s deontological approach is that a person
does have to believe the but simply obey it.16 Reuschling is correct when she says, “the Christian
life ought to correspond to the pattern and paradigm of Jesus and the kingdom of God.”17 The
act of obedience or duty must be attached to a love for God and for His word. This is further
addressed by Reuschling, “Obedience, when practiced in light of the Christian story, beckons us
to develop the requisite habits so that living out the demands of and allegiance to our faith in
God become part of us.”18
13 Ibid.
14 Ibid.
15 Ibid, Chapter 2.
16 Ibid.
17 Ibid.
18 Ibid.
Chapter 3 begins with the illustration of a church becoming more ‘modern’ in order to
attract a larger attendance in a service that has been dwindling. She speaks of the new way of
essentially ‘entertaining’ the masses to bring the greatest happiness to the greatest number of
people. She wonders if her church has not stepped exactly into the philosophy of utilitarianism.19
Reuschling says the problem with utilitarianism is that the morality it teaches does not require a
person to have any kind of relationship with God.20 This reader understands exactly the heart
wrenching that she must have gone through in missing the ‘old ways’ and wondering if the
direction is godly. She says that “Christian morality has its source in our relationship with Christ
and flows from that relationship as an embodied, dynamic, and living aspect of our lives as
Christians.”21 The Christian community cannot be built on feeling or pleasure it must be built on
love and devotion to the Father. Building a crowd is the goal of the world, getting the most
people possible under one big tent. The goal of the church is to tell others about Christ and teach
them to love Christ and to love His righteousness. It may not always be attractive and may not
always bring in the largest audience.
Reuschling also says in chapter 3 that, “We need people who are captivated by the moral
vision of the Kingdom of God.”22 Ironically this goes against the very essence of her argument
against the theory of Kant. In this sentence she is advocating for duty to be treasured. Instead of
people that treasure the rules we need people who treasure the Savior.
Chapter 4 focuses on Aristotle’s virtue theory and the idea of “being right with God”.23
Based on her illustration of a fellow student in college, she makes the assumption that some
19 Ibid, Chapter 3.
20 Ibid.
21 Ibid.
22 Ibid.
23 Ibid, Chapter 4.
misunderstand what trusting in God is all about. Her friend would not take tests because she did
not feel that God was telling her to do so. Her friend then failed her classes. She breaks this
down by saying that this virtue leads to selfishness. The problem in this illustration is that her
friend misunderstood what it meant to “be right with God”. Her friend without meaning too was
practicing virtue ethics that really did not have a connection with God but she was relying on
what made her happy and feel good about herself, when she wasn’t following through on the
reason she was in school in the first place. Though Reuschling does make some good points
about our world be self-obsessed. She states, “There appears to be an excessive amount of
attention directed to the need for one to be “healthy,” able to “love one’s own self” before
attention can be given to the interests and concerns of others.”24 She then leads the reader into
the topic of “spirituality of justice”.25 She states that, “… we live to make things right.”26 The
problem that she runs into her argument here is that she runs into the trap or argument of
teleology, by saying that the Christian needs to look for justice for others and what is the
common good. Not that we shouldn’t care about other, an outpouring of the Holy Spirit in our
lives will show the fruit of compassion. Careful attention needs to be taken that the Christian
does not fall into “social justice” and forget to live out the Matthew 28 command of winning and
discipling souls.
In Chapter 5, Reuschling begins to explain what she sees as a better evangelical ethical
model. The three elements that she includes are moral conscience, community, and
competency.27 She writes in deference to the three theories she has been discussing, “In reality,
24 Ibid.
25 Ibid.
26 Ibid.
27 Ibid, Chapter 5.
moral reflection and ethical deliberation are far more complex and require thought and care in
knowing how to bring our Christian commitments to bear in very complex moral spaces.”28 This
is very true and the Christian walking along with the Holy Spirit and allowing Him to move
through him or herself will practice ethics. The Bible says that anything not done of the Spirit is
sin, and while Reuschling declares that the church has elevated sin,29 maybe the case is that the
church has to remind people that sin is real and that we need to recognize, think about and avoid
the entanglements of Satan in this life. Isn’t that what the Gospel is about, being free from the
shackles of the detriment of sin?
In the conclusion, Reuschling speaks again on deontology, teleology, and virtue ethics
and concludes that they have merit in the arena of ethics.30 She says, “Christian morality is at the
heart of what it means to be a follower of Jesus Christ, a product of the ‘saved life’.”31 This
Christian morality that she talks about must come from the change that works out over time with
the Christian allowing the Holy Spirit to work in his life. Here in the conclusion, she spends a
great deal of time talking to preachers and offering help in the ways of being ethical in the
sermon, through illustrations, the style and delivery. While this is some good advice is does feel
as if it is drawn from a personal plea than being one that is attached to her book’s main premise.
She also gives advice on small groups and Christian service. While also good advice, it too
seems more along the lines of her personal feelings rather than being attached to her thesis.
28 Ibid.
29 Ibid.
30 Ibid, Conclusion.
31 Ibid.
Conclusion
As Reuschling intends for her audience to be preachers and leaders within the Christian
community, she really does not begin to specifically talk to them in her conclusion. Her book
would be better suited to this audience if she would bring them in earlier, so that the audience is
clearer. It is not that it is extremely difficult to ascertain, but as hard as the book is to read
because in some cases it seems more like coherent rambling, it would attract her intended
audience more quickly.
She makes great strides in letting the reader understand why the three main ethical
theories do not work. As she is trying to come up with a new ethical foundation that is Bible
based, her goal seems to have been achieved partly. There does seem to be a bit of personal
agenda behind the entire premise of the book, and while that is not always a negative reason for
writing a book on this topic, it does feel somewhat self-gratifying for her position as a Christian
ethics professor. Specifically, a female Christian ethics professor in a traditionally male
dominated religious field.
Bibliography
Hall, Mark David. "Did America Have a Christian Founding?" The Heritage Foundation.
Accessed February 12, 2019. https://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/did-
america-have-christian-founding.
Reuschling, Wyndy Corbin. Reviving Evangelical Ethics: The Promises and Pitfalls of Classic
Models of Morality. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Brazos Press, 2008. MyWSB
