globeandmail.com
His own research has concluded there are five foundations, or systems, that people use to construct their morality.
These foundations can be compared to five colours on a palette. Liberals tend to rely only on two, while conservatives tend to use all five.
The first two, favored by liberals are:
Harm: whether someone is harmed or harm is reduced.
Reciprocity: whether something is fair and treats people fairly and justly.
The rest, which only conservatives give weight to, include:
In-group: whether something betrays the group.
Hierarchy: whether something is respectful of authority and superiors.
Purity: whether or not something is disgusting.
In a sense, liberals are color blind to conservative concerns because they tend to paint problems in terms of only the first two daubs on the palette: whether things decrease harm and increase justice, fairness or autonomy.
Conversely, because conservatives evaluate issues in all five colors, they tend to put less emphasis on the first two.
“It’s as though there are five wavelengths and liberals only perceive two of them,” says Prof. Haidt, who is writing a book on morality called The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion.
The above article will seem strangely off base for the first part of this post — but bear with me:
The conversation always sounds something like this:
Comment: More and more people are leaving our church. The numbers are remaining stable as inflow is roughly matching outflow but so few people last here. It seems we have become a place for new believers to come to Christ and then leave for other churches — or long term believers who have had it with the bricks and mortar church to stop over as they leave for the, “Emerging church.” All of them report the same problem: They are sick of the legalism, moralizing, shame based control and judgment, they believe there is nothing remaining here for them and are leaving to find a deep and personal spirituality and a relationship with Jesus. Why can’t we do something about this?
Response: Well, you know, here at First ‘Whatever’ Church we are definitely a community of grace but we have always had trouble with our small groups. It seems we just have not found the right small group pastor who can really connect with the needs of the people here but, when we do, you are going to see our church just explode as people stay here and make it their church home.
Say WHAT?!?!?!?!?
If I’ve heard it once, I’ve heard it a thousand times. It’s like the conversation is being carried on in two different languages — yet everyone imagines that they hear clearly. It’s not like the above absurdist conversation is even news to anyone outside of the ivory towers of die-hard-fundamentalism, but it doesn’t seem to be changing either. Why?
A quick perusal of Emerging/Emergent church blogs suggests one possibility — perhaps the hearts of the bricks and mortar church leadership are simply so blinded by evil they can’t see the damage being done? It’s more then possible that applies to a few — but I doubt it covers the majority. I know too many full tilt lovers of Jesus who also can’t seem to think outside of the above box.
Others have simply suggested that it’s just a changing of the guard and we should fan the flames of it happening — let the institutional Church die. Again, at some level that could have truth in it. Clearly some denominational structures desperately need to die for there is just nothing left of Jesus in them — but that’s hardly the majority either. As ugly as it often is, the institutional Church is NEEDED to continue the conveyance of foundational ideas forward to the next generation.
However, possibly for the first time in history, we are dealing with an astounding monoculture of institutional church spanning nearly all denominations (Yes, including Roman Catholic and the Protestant Cults) that many see as so far off that they doubt it can convey much of anything useful to the next generation. The result has been the largest transnational exodus from the church ever recorded (other then the historical country limited example of France — Thank-you Jesuits) when one factors in both percentage and speed of departure. If it is going to communicate, then it seriously needs a revamping… Problem is, Bricks and Mortar/Institutional Church is widely regarded as disinterested in even listening anymore…
The article above suggests a different possibility: Perhaps it’s a language barrier. Perhaps the distinction that the above author is applying to liberal/conservative lines also applies to Bricks and Mortar/Institutional Church divisions from the Emerging/Emergent Church. If so, perhaps there is a road map for some sort of conversation there — if that’s the only problem…
Much of the Emerging/Emergent Church is profoundly pragmatic in nature. They are concerned with issues of social justice, incensed about the abuse of the poor and the violation of the rights of those who can not defend themselves. They care little or not at all about authority, superiors or whether or not anyone feels that their little fiefdom is offended. They are remarkably similar to the liberal designation — though it is without a doubt that the Emerging/Emergent Church is really quite orthodox in theological position and probably a fair bit more educated in such.
The Bricks and Mortar/Institutional Church is profoundly concerned with group order, authority, the issue of sin/offense and it gives only some acknowledgment of social justice or the pain of those who endure such. While, like the Conservative designated above, they do acknowledge all five points, they differ in how little the social issues seem to be on the agenda except in so called mainline churches (i.e., United Church) that really do not fit the definition of orthodox at all.
It’s not an exact parallel but the resemblances are striking. The trick is going to be somehow managing to make the translation:
Can the damage of shame based control and the abuse of religious power be framed in terms of respect of authority?
Can a judgment and fear based Gospel ever be painted in terms that would actually be understood by the Bricks and Mortar/Institutional Church as disgusting?
Can the neglect of the (oh so sinful) broken and wounded ever be framed as the betrayal of the in-group?
The above three points don’t seem impossible — but they would require a remarkable increase in Scriptural knowledge, a reclamation of ability to personally hear the voice of God, some profound transitions in theology by the Bricks and Mortar/Institutional Church and a global information effort by the Emerging/Emergent Church to drown out modern reconstitutions of the Moral Majority.
In the fourth point lies the problem: While the theology is being tackled (to only name one of many) by Bob George, the increase in knowledge is being addressed by Brennan Manning and the ability to hear the voice of God is being tackled by Rev. Brad Jersak, the Emerging/Emergent Church simply isn’t organized. The phenomenon is happening — but no one speaks for it, is leading it or seems to even care about taking the job. In part, the decentralized nature of it is both WHY it’s happening — and why it’s silent.
Apparently, that’s the job of the internet for it seems to be the only place where the Emerging/Emergent Church even seems to bother speaking… But, is the Bricks and Mortar/Institutional Church even represented there? Is there a large enough population in the Bricks and Mortar church that can even understand a blog-roll generated Google page-ranking as an equivalency to a peer review or the comment section as a credible form of intellectual debate? Is that why it appears that no one is listening?
Is THAT cultural divide practically insurmountable?
