Although the sexual revolution has been driven by powerful ideas, we should not underestimate the power of emotions – of gut feelings – in changing attitudes and behaviours.

Nor should be assume that the sexual revolution has entailed an abandonment of morality.  Rather, it has entailed a change in how we thing and feel about morality.

Jonathan Haidt has pictured the relationship between feeling and thought as that between an elephant and its rider.  If this analogy holds, then we need to appeal to the emotional elephant as well as to the intellectual rider.

Emotional reactions are especially powerful in this day of information overload.  Why trawl through endless reviews of holiday destinations when you can simply go with your gut feeling?  But gut reactions are fraught with problems too: they encourage lazy thinking, and can lead to stupid decisions.

According to Haidt, moral decisions entail a great deal of gut feeling, and are made on the basis of six systems.  Each asks a different question.

The first three focus on the individual:-

• ‘Is anyone getting hurt here?’
• ‘Is this benefiting one person more than another?’
• ‘Is anyone being oppressed here?’

The second three focus on the community:-

• ‘Would I be being disloyal to anyone?’
• ‘What have people always believed about this?’
• ‘Is there some overarching principle here that might put the whole community at risk?’

People who are more socially and politically liberal tend to favour the first three responses, whereas those with a more conservative outlook (and people from non-western cultures) tend to favour those on the right.

Applied to same-sex marriage, those on the liberal left would tend to argue: ‘if marriage is so good for heterosexuals, let’s allow gay people to share in the benefits as well’; ‘everybody deserves to be treated fairly: I’m for marriage equality’; ‘gay people have been oppressed for too long – it’s time to level the playing field.’

The more socially conservative, on the other hand, would favour arguments such as ‘‘we are talking about the redefinition of marriage here – marriage is an institution found in every culture through all history, and we meddle with it at our peril’; ‘it’s no use trying to meet the needs of a subsection of the bees if you end up destroying the whole hive’; ‘every kid deserves both a mum and a dad – we are experimenting with a whole generation of kids here.’

Moral foundations theory prompts a number of reflections:-

• ‘Over-reliance on moral intuitions supports lazy thinking and fosters bigotry.’
• ‘Over-reliance on moral intuitions makes people vulnerable to social pressure and conditioning.’
• ‘The rise of radical individualism has shifted people’s moral intuitions towards the left of the spectrum’: this shift entails a move away from ‘general principles’ and towards the needs of the individual.
• ‘We see all six moral systems perfectly integrated in the life and character of Jesus Christ, and we are called to be like him in our moral judgments.’

In conclusion:-

Our approach to sex and relationships must not be driven solely by gut instincts.  Our evaluations must be shaped by the moral vision of the Bible.

Christians need to find a language for engaging with secular liberalism.  There is little point in trying to rebut its arguments for compassion and fairness with appeals to authority and tradition.

We can, and we must, look to the person and character of God as revealed in the example and teaching of Jesus Christ.  ‘Over and over again, in his personal encounters, Jesus integrated justice and compassion for the individual with uncompromising obedience to God’s Word and his moral law.’  See, for example, Jn 8:7,11.

Based on, and quoting from: Harrison, Glynn. A Better Story: God, Sex And Human Flourishing. IVP. Chapter 3.