The polarizing effect of our incessant moralizing is evident all around us. From the most recent US presidential election to the debates over the morality of same-sex marriage. From the disagreements over illegal immigrants and \u2018DACA\u2019 status to the food stamp and unemployment benefits programs. ![\"\"](\"http:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dminlgp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/04\/22050114_174791763098594_703539157740881507_n-300x225.jpg\")
Let\u2019s be honest, these strong points of view are even evident within our own cohort (though we are all incredibly polite and genuinely care for one another). There are those of us who are clearly on the more conservative end of the spectrum while there are others of us who have a more liberal bias. All of us feel somewhat sorry for the \u2018others\u2019 and might even possess a hint of superiority believing that \u2018they\u2019 haven\u2019t quite figured it out yet.<\/p>\n
It is these divisions that Jonathan Haidt seeks to explain through the use of moral psychology in his book \u2018The Righteous Mind\u2019.\u00a0 Coming to terms with the reasons why we seem to disagree so vehemently regarding certain \u2018hot topic\u2019 issues such as: sexual orientation, gun control, immigration, biblical interpretation, abortion, social welfare, etc. is the apparent purpose of the text. But, it provides so much more fodder for a plethora of other considerations such as: acceptance of diverse cultures, connection to faith communities, perceived responsibility for the natural environment and the like. To fully grasp its benefit in contemplating these broader issues one must first come to terms with what Haidt believes to be true regarding the development of morality.<\/p>\n
First of all, it seems that those raised in the West, and especially in the US, with their individualistic mindset, motivation to achieve self-actualization, and belief that those who think like them are the only ones objectively considering all the facets of any given situation, are particularly susceptible to Secondly, Haidt makes the strong assertion that \u201cpeople are fundamentally intuitive, not rational<\/em>.\u201d[3]<\/a> Despite the belief that one\u2019s moral convictions are developed through reasoned processes, he argues that in actuality \u201cHuman morality is largely the result of internal predispositions, which Haidt calls \u2018intuitions\u2019. These intuitions predict which way we lean on various issues, questions, or decisions. The rational mind\u2026.has far less control over our moral frameworks than we might think. Intuition is much more basic and determinative than reasoning.<\/em>\u201d[4]<\/a> This idea challenges the oft accepted belief that people reason their way to morality.<\/p>\n While Haidt is largely concerned with the political polarization evident in the US of late, his psychological perspective does offer some means by which we can consider other issues relevant to the Church. What does this intuitiveness suggest then about adherence to the Church? Is it possible that certain people are predisposed to feel comfortable within this moral climate while others simply This leads to the question regarding the effort to \u2018convert\u2019 those outside the faith to a new way of thinking, believing, and living. Are these efforts simply an example of the Church spinning their metaphorical wheels in an effort to convince those in a rational way of something that they might I am not suggesting that there is no room for evangelism or that we do not have a responsibility to share the Good News with all. However, I do wonder whether or not the way we go about it fails to take into consideration Haidt\u2019s findings regarding intuition and rationalism. Much of our evangelism is based around apologetics \u2013 the rational and considered exposition of the Gospel in order to convince someone of its universal truths. It is my contention that Millennials are far less concerned about the truth of the Gospel and far more concerned about its goodness.[7]<\/a> Millennials come to reconsider world views experientially far more than they do so through reason. If we desire to alter the minds of people regarding the truth of the Christian faith reason should not be the focus of our efforts. \u201cAppeal to reason\u2019s boss: the underlying moral intuitions whose conclusions reason defends.<\/em>\u201d[8]<\/a><\/p>\n The biggest criticism of Haidt\u2019s work fits well here and may provide us with the necessary understanding to continue sharing the Gospel in a meaningful way.\u00a0 It is his lack of a telos or end goal. Ultimate truth and happiness can only be found in knowing and loving God. And, in reality can only be partially known in this material world. It will only be fully realized in the world to come.[9]<\/a> While the Gospel we preach must be more than simply selling tickets to heaven we would do well to help all people understand that the world in which we live is only part of the story.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n [1]<\/a> Haidt, Jonathan.\u00a0The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion<\/em>. New York: Vintage Books, 2013. P. 112<\/p>\n [2]<\/a> White, Christopher. “Making Nice or Making Good? Politics, Religion, and Our Righteous Minds.” Catholic World Report. November 5, 2012. Accessed April 05, 2018. http:\/\/www.catholicworldreport.com\/2012\/11\/05\/making-nice-or-making-good-politics-religion-and-our-righteous-minds\/.<\/p>\n [3]<\/a> Saletan, William. “‘The Righteous Mind,’ by Jonathan Haidt.” The New York Times. March 23, 2012. Accessed April 05, 2018. https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2012\/03\/25\/books\/review\/the-righteous-mind-by-jonathan-haidt.html.<\/p>\n [4]<\/a> Roberts, Kyle. “Riding the Moral Elephant: A Review of Jonathan Haidt’s The Righteous Mind.” Biola University Center for Christian Thought \/ The Table. June 28, 2017. Accessed April 05, 2018. https:\/\/cct.biola.edu\/riding-moral-elephant-review-jonathan-haidts-righteous-mind\/.<\/p>\n [5]<\/a> Denton, Melinda Lundquist., and Christian Smith.\u00a0Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers<\/em>. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. P. 34<\/p>\n [6]<\/a>\u00a0Ibid. P. 27<\/p>\n [7]<\/a> McLaren, Brian D.\u00a0More Ready than You Realize: Evangelism as Dance in the Postmodern Matrix<\/em>. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dminlgp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/04\/weird-facts-about-dreams-300x219.jpg\")
feelings of moral absoluteness. Haidt calls these people \u2018WEIRD\u2019, an acronym meaning: Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, & Democratic.[1]<\/a> These individuals, which includes all of us in this D Min program, represent a significant minority on the world scale and possess a type of moralistic thinking unique to this demographic. \u201cThese conditions [have] made it impossible to conceive that there are other possible moralities and truths<\/em>.\u201d[2]<\/a> It is difficult for WEIRD people to understand \u2018group think\u2019 or making decisions based on ones subservience to the family or community.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dminlgp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/04\/606115._UY400_SS400_-300x300.jpg\")
will not no matter how much we might try to convince them? If this is the case, then where do these predispositions come from? Christian Smith in his notable nationwide research on the religious life of adolescents in the US suggests that almost all adolescents who have any significant connection to a faith community do so as a direct result of the involvement of their parents.[5]<\/a> While this does not eliminate the possibility that young people have come to their own rational conclusions about faith involvement, it does suggest that perhaps this connection has more to do with their innate predisposition and familial socialization.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dminlgp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/04\/Passing-the-Baton-Kingdom-Christian1-300x177.png\")
intuitively deny? To put it another way; Are all the people who are likely to have a meaningful connection to a Christian faith community already there? Perhaps greater effort should be placed on discipleship and generational transference than trying to convince those who currently are not predisposed to faith to adopt a new worldview. For, there is little doubt that the Church has a significant problem when it comes to transference of faith from one generation to the next. Again, Smith is helpful here. \u201cInterviewing teens, one finds little evidence that the agents of religious socialization in the country are being highly effective and successful with the majority of their young people.<\/em>\u201d[6]<\/a> The Church is failing even to transfer faith adequately to the next generation who are raised within the community. What real hope do we have of convincing those without any God-frame to adopt this worldview?<\/p>\n