When Discernment Looks Like Dissent

In his book Integrity, Stephan L. Carter explores the topic of integrity and what it might mean for an individual to act with integrity. Carter’s definition, which is deceptively simple, is that integrity is an action that requires three distinct steps. The first step, which I will paraphrase, is to discern a well-informed stance or belief. The second step is to then act in ways which are consistent with these discerned beliefs, “even at personal cost.” And the third and final step is to state these beliefs and how they inform your actions. Carter concludes that the individual who lives a life consistent with this definition of integrity is leading an integral life.

It is perhaps easy to accept Carter’s technical definition of integrity and find little to fault. However, the implementation of such a framework is not far from controversy. Discernment necessarily requires the individual to be judgemental and designate “right” from “wrong,” which presents us with a bit of a dilemma. What happens, and further who is “right,” when being integral requires nonconformity to accepted norms? Or put differently, is it better for the individual who is living an integral life to follow the rules and laws of government and society, or to act in consistency with their beliefs? Carter digs deep and concludes that indeed living an integral life is not always about following the rules, and in fact at times acting with integrity may require rules to be broken.

shutterstock_488719936

Given this, how, or perhaps where, do we locate integrity in the issue confronting us following President Trump’s speech which has purposefully forced us into a cultural debate? On the one side, we have devotees of patriotism and civil religion demanding proper respect for an object and practice that symbolizes a victory over conflict earned through the sacrifice of many. On the other are individuals who see the promise of freedom and equality not yet fulfilled. Who is more integral? Those who have discerned that their beliefs dictate that standing in respect for the flag and anthem? Or perhaps those who have discerned that it is necessary to act in the only way possible and draw attention to a broken system?

The reconciliation of these two is not trivial, and I find it troubling that Trump continues to use this narrative to divide us. Further, Trump’s insistence that this is all about one side of the argument, about respect for the symbols of a civil religion, lacks context and wrongly belittles the integrity of Colin Kaepernick, and those who have joined his cause, and why he chose to kneel. This is not leadership, is it bullying.

Aside from standing or kneeling, the critique of National Football League (NFL) players has included an assertion that players should just stick to football and not be political activists while on the job. Martin Luther, a bit of a nonconforming activist of his time and also an individual who strove to lead an integral life, has something to say about this and an individual’s baptismal vocation. The Evangelical Luthern Church in America (ELCA), has published a social statement called Church in Society: A Lutheran Perspective, which makes the following statement

One of the ways the Church participates in society is through its members. In dying to sin and rising with Christ in Baptism, Christians are called to “walk in newness of life” (Romans 6:1-11). They fulfill their baptismal vocation in ordinary life as family members, friends, citizens, workers, and participants in voluntary associations. Since “daily life [is] the primary setting for the exercise of [the] Christian calling,” it is in that setting that Christians are to serve God and neighbor.

An integral life is one lived in the journey of discernment and played out in whatever vocation it is we perform. Lastly, Carter challenges us to not view our differences as dissent, but rather a necessary process that will inform our discernment, for we will not know if we are acting from “deep and steadfast principles until those principles are tested.”

The Future is What We Create

As if she has grown restless and feels the urgency to make her point, Mother Earth has forcefully besieged the United States in what I can only describe as a climate change truther campaign. Parched and sun-baked forests in the west are no match for the flames of fire. Storms fueled by warm ocean water are lining up across the Atlantic Ocean, as if on some tropical storm runway, with a one-way ticket to our eastern shores.

Earlier today, I reposted the image below on Facebook. I intended it to be a critique of our current leaders, and those in their mainly Christian base, who dismiss science and the impacts of human-created climate change.

21369544_1628014540566129_9173408967566860975_n

Now fearing that I have once again fallen prey to the sharing economy of Facebook, herein lies the context which was missing from that earlier post.

First, and let me make this abundantly clear, I am in no way belittling any individual who feels inspired to pray. Prayer, and meditation, in general, is manifest in many forms and has tremendous value. Pausing for a few quiet moments in the dark before you sleep. Feeling moved by a passage in an inspirational book. Getting lost in your thoughts as you walk a wooded path. Prayer connects us, it grounds us, and it helps us to clarify our purpose. Honestly, I probably do not pray enough.

So why would I repost a social media meme that literally says don’t pray? Fair question, and perhaps if I were writing the caption for this image I would have worded it differently. Mine would say something like, “Prayer isn’t the only thing we need, get out and vote!”

We need to pray, and undoubtedly we need to meditate deeply on some significant issues these days. There are many in our nation, and in our world, who need help. Sometimes the severity of it all paralyzes us, and perhaps we feel that all we can do is pray. I would welcome the mediation which could calm the storms and douse the flames for good. But leaving these things just to prayer is stopping way short of what I believe is a Christian life. We are called to action, we are called to a Christian vocation, we are called to be the earthly body of God.

The human impact on Mother Earth is well documented. Because these facts are necessarily rooted in science, many of my fellow Christians reject it as fallible since science lacks a divine origin. This is to say nothing about how this stance is then extended into a political point of view that climate change specifically is just a liberal hoax.

Like science, theology is a human-made framework in which we seek to find an order for the things that are beyond our human capacity. If we reject science on the grounds of its human origins, then why would we not do the same with dogmatic theology? I believe that theology, like science, is only useful when we put it into action, we test it, and perhaps we even adapt it.

When I depart from Mother Earth, I would like to do so knowing that our children, and the generations who will follow, will not have to fear the storms and the fires. If all that was required was prayer, then I am confident that this would have been solved a long time ago. I believe that our core purpose is to be in a relationship with our environment and with each other. This is my Christian vocation. I am called to life-long education, to love others, to love Mother Earth, to pray, to advocate, and, when necessary, to vote for leaders who I believe will do the same. To do so, I must test theology with science, test science with faith, and then discern my response.

The future that I believe we are called create will require more than praying, but a quick prayer now and then certainly will not hurt either.