‘A better story’ – 7 – Walking With Giants

This entry is part 8 of 18 in the series: A Better Story (Harrison)

Sociologist Peter Berger has suggested that ‘cognitive minorities’ need to develop strategies if they are to survive. Christians, once in the majority in the Western world, are now a ‘cognitive minority’. Not only that, but they are regarded as an immoral cognitive minority.

Psychologist Solomon Asch demonstrated that human beings can be dangerously conformist:-

Asch’s work demonstrates how difficult it is for human beings to stick out from the crowd. We hate being the odd one out. Holding views that are dissonant from the majority makes us feel uncomfortable, excluded, distrusted. It puts us under the uncomfortable spotlight of other people’s scrutiny. So we hide what we really think or, when forced to express our view, we search for possible reasons to change our mind.

Within a social group, ideas are often accepted on trust, and are sustained by the nurture and reinforcement of the group.

Berger coined the term ‘plausibility structures’ to describe the social processes that encourage us to take ideas on trust. For example, an idea’s plausibility is strengthened when it is heard frequently in the media, or advanced by attractive role models whom we respect or by intellectual elites who seem to know what they are talking about. The most powerful plausibility structure is the tone we adopt when ideas are exchanged in conversation: it is hard to resist a tone of voice that implies ‘everybody knows this’, particularly when it is accompanied by nodding heads around the table. Once an idea is assumed to be true in the ‘conversational fabric’ of a society, that idea has pretty much made it.

Support networks are important for the maintenance of plausibility structures, particularly within minority groups. Such groups need to take active steps to nourish their favoured beliefs and behaviours. ‘They need intellectual leaders, attractive role models and the opportunity for members to rehearse and consolidate their ideas in the conversational fabric of their group.’ Thus, a sense of confidence and pride is nurtured. This was well understood by the leaders of Gay Pride. But it is understood by Christians, in reference to their posture on sex and relationships?

In today’s culture Christians face a double jeopardy of shame from their own internal shame structures and their experience as an immoral minority in wider society. Young people are especially susceptible and are likely to vote with their feet.

Part of the problem is the Christians often do not know how to talk about sex. And if they do talk about it, they talk about what they are against, but not what they are for.

In moving forward, we need:-

1. A better critique. ‘We need to connect more skilfully and thoughtfully with minds and hearts already won over by the revolution’s ideology and moral vision.’ As we do so, we need to pay attention to tone and relationship. We need to find and explore common ground. We need to critique the sexual revolution not simply on the grounds of belief, but also in terms of whether it has delivered on its promise (of freedom, flourishing and well-being).

2. A better story. We need to tell a different story, a better story. And that will include stories of the transforming power of Jesus in lives today.

3. Better storytellers. We need to tell our story with conviction and integrity. We need to tell that story out the the flesh-and-blood reality of our own experiences. We need to utilise the new media and other forms of expression and communication.

Summarising: Harrison, Glynn. A Better Story: God, Sex And Human Flourishing . IVP. Kindle Edition. Chapter 7.