The New Yorker Magazine‘s conference entitled 2012 recently posted a presentation by Jonathan Haidt on the conference’s podcast called Morality: 2012. Haidt is a psychology professor at the University of Virginia who has done significant research in the area of morality, and is a bit of an expert in the field. His presentation was fascinating. He introduces the concept that those who would label themselves “liberal” found their morality on two pillars, while those who label themselves “conservative” found their morality on five pillars. For example, liberal morality may involve primarily the concept of harming no one, while conservative morality incorporates tradition and so forth into a much more complex value structure…watch the podcast, because my attempt at explanation here will fall sadly short, and I promise it will be 30 minutes well-spent.
While there is much to Haidt’s foundational approach with which I disagree (he’s a self-proclaimed atheist, if there is such a thing), he poses intriguing conclusions in his lecture. I see the products of this in modern evangelicism frequently. For example, the bent of the traditional church (what Haidt would call conservative morality) has long been to combat such issues as abortion and gay marriage, while ignoring equally pressing social issues that Christ was just as disapproving of, such as discrimination, racism, classicism, or leaving the homeless on our streets. It causes me to wonder how much the tradition of the church controls our morality.
It certainly causes me to question our approach.
After examining Scripture about these issues, I have certainly come to hold the larger evangelical view that abortion is wrong. I don’t support marriage between two people of the same gender. I don’t necessarily believe that making it illegal is the answer…unfortunately, many Believers were quickly swayed to vote for DOMA without reading the fine print (it apparently caused quite a legal quagmire for same-sex partners who were victims of domestic abuse, for example). And while I do think that the church should be vocal about these issues (notice I say be vocal, not engage in hate speech and judgemental segregation…there’s a difference), I’m curious as to why the church at large doesn’t take a stand against racism. Or the AIDS crisis. Or the economic elitism of America. Strange how we don’t seem to see those as major issues.
I suppose that I would fall dead in the middle of Haidt’s proposed morality labels..dead in the middle between conservative and liberal, by his definitions. But, riddle me this: why aren’t Evangelicals taking a broader look at the issues facing humans today? The mission of our church is to engage our culture, which means that we first have to recognize the primary plagues of our human condition today. That goes far, far beyond what the hyper-conservative fundamentalist movement wants to label as “sin.”
Perhaps our traditions need to be tossed by the wayside in order for us clear our vision a bit? Hmmm…me being against tradition…not such a new thing, I suppose.
Experience speaks volumes more than analysis, though. On my first visit to New York City many years ago, on a cold Spring weekend as I hurried down a sidewalk toward my Times Square hotel in freezing rain, I passed a woman who was partially hidden in an alleyway, naked except for a trash bag that she had thrown around herself, and desperately holding out a fist full of dollar bills in her frozen fingers as she pleaded with passersby for enough money to find a place to take shelter from the weather.
No one paused to acknowledge her.
That image has haunted me through the decades. Jesus wouldn’t have walked by her, but I did, because I was concerned about my personal safety. Apparently, my traditional moral values leave much to be desired.
Perhaps we should spend more time re-vamping our internal perceptions about these types of encounters than protesting at abortion clinics?
But, then again, I guess that wouldn’t be traditional enough.
Technorati tag: 
morality