On Integrity

In divinity school, students are constantly reminded that we must work to develop and maintain our "ministerial integrity."  As is the case with many pieces of advice given in divinity school, nobody really ever explains what is meant by the word "integrity" - much less do they explain how one in ministry might "develop and maintain" such a thing.


Because I think about such things in more detail than may be necessary, I have recently been "hung up" on this phrase, "ministerial integrity" and have wondered how in the world it might benefit me as I continue to serve God through my work in the church and in the academy.  Given my recent "hang ups" about integrity it is fortuitous that I happened across an essay by Rowan Williams entitled "Theological Integrity."  The essay appears in his collection of essays entitled On Christian Theology published by Blackwell back in 2000.

In this essay, I have found Rowan Williams to be not only the most erudite theologian I have encountered to date but also the one who writes most beautifully - a quality which is desperately needed in theology today.  Moreover, he has distinguished himself as one of the finest theologians in the world - not to mention his gracious and creative work as Archbishop of Canterbury.  All that is to say that I believe that Williams is uniquely postured to provide a theological account of the meaning of integrity as it applies to those in vocational ministry.  Williams has this to say about integrity:

Having integrity...is being able to speak in a way which allows of answers.  Honest discourse permits response and continuation; it involves collaboration by showing that it does not claim to be, in and of itself, final.  It does not seek to prescribe the tone, the direction, or even the vocabulary of a response.  And it does all this by showing in its own working a critical self-perception, displaying the axioms to which it believes itself accountable; that is to say, it makes clear that it accepts, even within its own terms of reference, that there are ways in which it may be questioned and criticized.  It is a skill that must be learned rather than a system to be accepted.  It sets out a possible framework for talk and perception, a field for debate, and so a field for its own future transmutations.  When it resists debate and transmutation, claiming that it may prescribe exactly what the learning of its skills should lead to, it is open to the suspicion that its working are no longer answerable to what they claim to answer to: the further determinant has been added of the need to safeguard the power that licenses this kind of talk; and thus integrity disappears" (Williams, "Theological Integrity" in On Christian Theology, p. 5).

Put plainly, integrity is action or speech which does not conceal its agenda.  A popular example of this disappearance of integrity to which Williams refers can be readily observed in much of the recent debate surrounding "healthcare" reform.  Many of those who argue so stridently against any sort of reform do not openly reveal to the public that they are either financially beholden or linked for purposes of power to parties that stand to suffer financial loss if reform is passed.  Such people make arguments about "socialized medicine" or a "government takeover of healthcare" when what they are really concerned about is either money or clout.  Such arguments lack integrity and, thus, do not create - as Williams put it - an open "field for debate."  Such arguments seek to "shut down" all response and charitable speech by claiming to have the only logical perspective.  In such an atmosphere one is either "right" or "wrong" (depending on your perspective) and is, therefore, either an asset or a pariah.

In a ministerial sense, integrity might mean that a pastor with integrity would not couch appeals for giving money to the church in a sense of "duty" or "giving to the Kingdom."  When preachers give sermons on tithing, they often lack integrity because they do not reveal that a major concern surrounding a church's giving is the continuance of the pastoral salary.

I recall here a tense moment in a rural church in which I served as an intern.  In this particular church, regional church officers (referred to as "district superintendents") visit churches to give "pastoral encouragement" to both the local pastor and to the whole congregation.  On one particular pastoral errand, a district superintendent's "sermon" about the importance of "Giving to the work of the Lord" was cut short when an elderly woman who grew up in this church stood and interrupted the district superintendant.  The woman stood and said, "You keep telling us about the importance of giving to the kingdom.  Why don't you quit pussyfooting around and tell us what you really want to say!  You're lecturing us about giving to God's kingdom when what you're really concerned about is keeping that Lexus in your driveway and that Rolex on your wrist!"  It turns out that this particular "church official" never visited the church for any other reason than to remind them to "pay their apportionments."

It seems that as much as ministers (myself included) have become masters of concealing our agendas and motives from others, the real problem is that we have become even better at concealing them from ourselves.  If we who are ministers were to be truthful with ourselves about our motives in preaching, in teaching, in counseling, and so on, I'm certain we would find ourselves questioning whether what we emphasize in our words and actions is either faithful or fruitful (much less lacking or having theological integrity). 

This is not merely true of pastors and financial issues in churches.  Another related problem which stems from lack of integrity is the issue of power and control in the public sphere.  Denominational leaders and other ministers who speak - either officially or unofficially - for large groups of people lack integrity when they present their ideas as showcasing "the way the world works" or "the way God sees things."  

One example of ways of reasoning and persuading that lack this kind of integrity in the public sphere might be the contemporary debate over the inclusion of openly gay Christians in church membership and pastoral leadership.  There are many in today's world who claim - either directly or indirectly - to speak from God's point of view or to explain "the way the world works" with regard to human sexuality.  

Such people lack integrity because they refuse to admit that they are arguing a particular perspective rather than presenting in its totality the way God intended the world in general - and human sexuality in particular - to function.  Williams, again, has much to say about such ways of reasoning.  Note: he is not here addressing the particular arguments regarding homosexuality but, rather, the general lack of integrity of all arguments and modes of discourse which seek this sort of unwarranted totalitarian control over the lives of other people.  He writes, 

Religious talk is in an odd position here.  On the one hand, it is making claims about the context of the whole universe, claims of crucial concern for the right leading of human life; it is thus not likely, prima facie, to be content with provisional statements.  On the other hand, if it really purports to be about the context of the moral universe, it declares itself to be uniquely 'under judgement', and to be dealing with what supremely resists the urge to finish and close up what is being said.  How is the context of the moral universe to appear in our speech without distortion? If it is represented as something whose operations have been securely or finally charted and whose authority can be straightforwardly invoked by this or that group of speakers, what is in fact happing is that such discourse is claiming to define 'the moral universe' itself.  Yet all speakers speak from a perspective, social and historical, and their words are part of the universe they claim to see as a whole" (Williams, 5).

When ministers and others who claim to represent Christianity in the public sphere make absolute claims regarding any moral subject - be it health care reform, sexuality, war, anything really - they lack integrity in an extreme and wholly dangerous way because such discourse denies the possibility of rebuttal and shuts down all avenues for true discussion.  In a very real sense, then, Christians need to lead the way in recovering integrity in public discourse.  But what would such a recovery look like?  How might Christians lead the way in developing and maintaining true integrity in our daily lives such that we might faithfully and fruitfully participate in the public discourse?  What practices - both personal and communal - are necessary to help develop real integrity that has the potential to both reveal who we are and to transform us into who we are becoming in Christ?  Any thoughts?