New York Times Columnist David Brooks recently published an article in the Atlantic magazine about the condition of morality. He discussed the history of morality and explained why so many people ignore morality today. (The article can be found here, but you probably need a subscription.) This is very important for believers to understand, especially leaders, because we need to understand how people think if we are going to help them transition to Christlike thinking. Brooks begins with the problem, then examines history; he highlights the Enlightenment movement that began in the 17th century. It prioritized the power of reason to arrive at all knowledge. I will quote from Brooks’ article.
There’s a question that’s been bugging me for nearly a decade. How is it that half of America looks at Donald Trump and doesn’t find him morally repellent? He lies, cheats, steals, betrays, and behaves cruelly and corruptly, and more than 70 million Americans find him, at the very least, morally acceptable. Some even see him as heroic, admirable, and wonderful. What has brought us to this state of moral numbness?
Brooks references contemporary philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre on the Enlightenment:
The Enlightenment project failed, he argued, because it produced rationalistic systems of morals too thin and abstract to give meaning to actual lives. It destroyed coherent moral ecologies and left autonomous individuals naked and alone. Furthermore, it devalued the very faculties people had long used to find meaning. Reason and science are great at telling you how to do things, but not at answering the fundamental questions: Why are we here? What is the ultimate purpose of my life? What is right and what is wrong?
Brooks continues to explain why people ignore morality that comes from outside themselves, and justify it with their (often unconscious) philosophy:
We’ve tried to cure the moral vacuum MacIntyre saw at the center of the Enlightenment with narcissism, fanaticism, and authoritarianism—and the cure turned out to be worse than the disease…
Today, we live in a world in which many, or even most, people no longer have a sense that there is a permanent moral order to the universe. More than that, many have come to regard the traditions of moral practice that were so central to the ancient worldview as too inhibiting—they get in the way of maximum individual freedom…
How do people make decisions about the right thing to do if they are not embedded in a permanent moral order? They do whatever feels right to them at the moment. MacIntyre called this “emotivism,” the idea that “all moral judgments are nothing but expressions of preference, expressions of attitude or feeling.”
So, how do people promote their ideas or ideologies in such an environment? How can we move others, either on the individual level or on the societal level (i.e., politics)?
If no one can persuade anybody about right and wrong, then there are only two ways to settle our differences: coercion or manipulation. Each of us comes to regard other members of society as simply means to our ends, who can be coerced into believing what we believe,…advertisers, demagogues, and influencers try to manipulate our emotions so we will end up wanting what they want, helping them get what they want.
Then Brooks finalizes his explanation of public support of unethical or immoral people with this observation:
So of course many people don’t find Trump morally repellent. He’s just an exaggerated version of the kind of person modern society was designed to create.
Sadly, people support such people (any kind of public figure: conservative, liberal, entertainer, influencer, etc.) because they identify with them and their philosophy of life. People ignore morality that transcends themselves (e.g., from God) so they support whoever picks the same personal “morality” they choose.
So, it is likely that one of the reasons you can’t persuade your neighbor to explore Jesus as the answer to their life questions is that they don’t truly believe in a transcendent right or wrong. You are probably already aware of this possibility, but it is helpful to keep it in mind when you dialogue. Of course, you won’t resort to coercion or manipulation. In effect, they believe their views are just as valid as Jesus’ views recorded in the bible (though they probably would put it that way.) They can Furthermore, their relativism allows them to justify their pursuit of socially acceptable materialism, hedonism and narcissism (which they also would not admit), but justify themselves as a generally good person.
So, how should we respond now that we understand why people ignore morality (or any religious principles)? First, we should not condemn them in our minds. They are lost just like we were before we received Jesus. Secondly, don’t be upset with their philosophy. Don’t react or try to prove it wrong. Just accept the fact that you cannot appeal to an authority (e.g., the bible, moral teachers, the natural order) in order to persuade them. Thirdly, present Jesus’ teachings in a warm, positive way. Explain what he gives (forgiveness, peace, joy, purpose, eternal happiness, etc.) Fourthly, give some personal testimony about his effect on your life. Finally, keep dialoging with them to show them your acceptance and kindness toward them. Listen to them and try to understand their deep desires, then explain how Jesus can satisfy their legitimate desires. This approach will help to bypass their relativism and get to their heart, which is where Jesus wants to connect with them.
Of course, be prepared to present the way of salvation through Christ: admitting sin, believing the truth about Jesus, repenting from their old life, receiving Jesus as their savior, and making an initial surrender to Jesus as their lord. Give them time to ponder this message and stay in dialogue. The Holy Spirit may be working in them to bring them to Christ through you.
Knowing that most people ignore morality that transcends themselves, what words will you use when you find yourself in a dialogue with them about life?
