They are Just Wired Differently

I am currently reading a book entitled “The Righteous Mind” by Jonathan Haidt – who studies moral psychology. It is his thesis that our beliefs come (intuitively) before we form reasons for those beliefs. Those beliefs are hard wired into us and not easily changed by reason based arguments. As I read this thesis, it seems clear to me that we are each hardwired into our opposing positions. The revisionists in the PC(USA) are wired to hold fairness as their highest element. It is fairness to the individual and his or her rights and dignity. They also hold in high regard the protection of weak from being harmed by the strong.

One example cited in the book is of a woman who is out of dust rags. While looking for an old shirt in the closet she sees an American flag standing in the corner. It had belonged to the previous owner. She removes the flag, cuts into pieces for her rag supply. She offends no one by her acts because it is done in the sanctity of her private residence. The item belongs to her. When a samples of persons are asked if her actions were morally wrong some said "yes" while other said "no." When ask on what they based their response the answers are telling. Some said, "She didn't harm anyone with her act since no one even knew she did it." Other said, "The flag was a symbol of everything good about our nation and thereby it was a sacred item with inherent worth." This and other questions helped itentify six moral matrixes.

 Both sides hold a high value for loyalty to their side and a keen intolerance for any who betrays the vested interest of a given side. Both conservatives and liberals (politically) hold liberty in high regard and are repulsed by oppression. It’s just that they hold very different applications of liberty and oppression. One views liberty as something granted by government for individuals (the oppressed) and for the other liberty is protected by the law for those who exercise it in organized endeavors, like economic systems. For conservatives, liberty is truly liberty if one is free to succeed and free to fail.

Traditionalists have a high regard for external authority. This is objective authority rather than the subjective based authority held by revisionists. Traditionalists view anyone who belittles this external authority (the Bible) as subversive to the truth. An authority derived by an external, even, divine source it is difficult for any true believer to change even if the application of that authority might harm some individuals. Without this authority, something of great value to all is lost. Such a stand is inherently unjust for the revisionist whose main interest is to protect every individual (especially weak individuals) from harm. To curtail the rights of an individual, whose expression of themselves harms no one is sheer cruelty for the liberal minded person.

Up till two generations ago, a moderate tolerance of differing views kept the Presbyterian Church united. That tolerance is all but crumbled to dust. We are left to ask God, the question a prophet once asked Him. “Shall these dry bones live again?” There have always been traditionalists and revisionists in the Presbyterian Church. Up till recently, they would find a way to work toward a common goal. What has changed?