Integrity
Augustine noted that the preacher’s life, known to his people, and their perception of the depth of his practiced devotion, strongly influenced their reception of what he preached. If the preacher preached what his congregation knew he did not live, they didn’t take his preaching seriously. But if they saw in him deep devotion and dependence on God, humility and grace, patience and kindness – they were convicted to deepen their own spiritual roots.
Saint Patrick held high expectations for his mission teams as they entered each settlement. The high level of extrinsic ethos, evident to the villagers, served to enhance the reception to the message. That is, the people received what Saint Patrick’s people lived, what they incarnated, not merely what they proclaimed.
Theologian Helmut Thielicke claimed that credibility was the key operative factor in the preacher’s arsenal.
“We live, he maintained, in an age of ‘paid propagandists’ for causes ranging from consumer products to political candidates. In that context, hearers want to know whether this politician will deliver on her promises if elected. They want to know whether that sports star really uses the underarm deodorant he advertises, and whether it transformed his social life, or whether he is just a paid propagandist for the brand.”
The same is true for preachers and Christians and the church. We face an enormous credibility gap by not incarnating the truths we proclaim. The culture is asking, “Are pastors and preachers just paid propagandist for Christianity and the church? Or do they believe what they say? And more so, if they believe it, do they behave it?” Sadly, the answer is, ‘No!’ – too often they don’t behave it. They own the faith superficially, not profoundly.
Ghandi once asserted that if Christians had lived the Christian faith, everyone in India would have been converted. George Barna, in one survey, noted that on more than 100 measurements, there was little to distinguish the self-professed Christian from the non-Christian. This is saltless salt and dim, dark lights.
As one poet charged, “I could believe in Christ, were it not for the church!” Among the youth population, their problem is not Christ, it is Christians; it is the church. We are not the glorious church of which Paul spoke. As a result, the unchurched around us have come to doubt the gospel narrative. They already have cultural reasons to doubt – the exalted narrative of science and the values war, as well as the screams of the flesh for radical liberty. We give them one more – and that may be the most compelling of all their reasons for not believing. We can argue the truth, but until they see truth in our lives, they will remain unconvinced.
George Hunter clicks off a series of notes about the skeptical world around us and their cautiousness about the church, their reticence to embrace faith. First, he says, on the minds of the world is the question of integrity. Do Christians really believe in Christianity, in what it teaches? Do they even know what they supposedly believe. In many cases, they do not! Only 9 percent of Christians are now ‘Bible Christians’ who take scripture seriously, not merely at the point of believing but also by practicing those beliefs. We are too much like the unchurched – and if so, what advantage is Christianity, church attendance, or prayer and scripture engagement.
That is Hunter’s second point. Some in the culture don’t doubt our mental and intellectual commitment to faith, theology and ethics, they simple do not believe that we live according to that faith. That is a credibility issue.
Hunter’s third point is even more invasive. There are those who know Christians who both believe their faith and behave its principles. Still, these doubters wonder if it really makes any real difference. Is heaven real? Does God really act in a time-space world for those who follow Him? Is there really a deeper peace, and greater joy, and fuller love in following Christ? What difference does it really make? This is a consequential concern, an issue of theological praxis. What is the practical, measurable difference in the lives of those who practice Christianity?
Fourth, and even more broadly, some surmise, that if Christianity makes a personal, positive difference, can it really make a difference in the world? This is crisis of doubt regarding missiology and the social-cultural impact of the church and its mission. For example, these outsiders wonder, “Where is the church on issues of justice, reconciliation and peace, on the environment, as champions for the oppressed?”
Is the mission of the church only for the fulfillment of its members? Is it narrow and self-interested? Is it merely for comfort and its devotional value? Or is the church willing to speak to the cultural chaos? Most churches, and for that matter, most Christians are silent on the salient issues that are deemed controversial – even those that are clearly moral matters. Such a church is neither salt nor light. There is no doubt that we are contending with a much more skeptical audience than in previous decades. The church no longer has a free pass – it is now being tested by the younger generation, re authenticity, integrity, credibility, praxis and cultural sensitivity. They see the cultural chaos, the world as a powder-keg, the social-cultural fault-lines, the nuclear arsenals. They are confused on the issues of gender, and political models, the environment and family life, sexual liberty and abortion. Who, they ask, is responsible for being a voice of clarity? Of bringing order to chaos?
What do you think? Is this not the message of the kingdom of God? – righteousness (justice), peace (inner peace, but also, geopolitical peace) and joy (evidence of fulfilment)? To say it differently, does God only change individuals, or does He change cultures, cities, even nations? We have a narrow and personal perception of evangelism. The scriptures look to the day when “nations will be joined to the Lord” (Zech. 2:11; Hag. 2:17; Psa. 2:8). The book of Acts includes some one-hundred place names. It is the story of God impacting cities through the ministry of the apostles. We see Paul interfacing with community leaders, kings and those with authority.
Evangelism has sometimes been overhanded, “Sit down, I am going to tell you about Jesus – don’t interrupt. Remember, I am holy, you are a sinner. I am doing you a favor. So, listen – no questions.” Rabbi Irving Greenberg reminds us that “in the context of a covenant” faith is an open dialogue. It involves both obedience and questions. “Unquestioning obedience is not morally desirable; it is not asked of us and should not be given. Biblically, only an idol cannot stand up to questioning. Only idols refuse to be questioned. God invites questioning.”
Note the interaction of Jesus with his disciples – they were always questioning him and conferring one with another in a doubtful, disagreeable manner behind his back. Balance is essential. Greenberg cautions, “God invites questioning.” However, the questioning disciple who is not really seeking to actively live out the Christian life is also inauthentic. Covenantal faith is not merely a matter of believing or assenting to a proposition. It is an attitude of the heart. It is faithful as it struggles to believe and understand. A Hebrew term for faith, emunah (from which we get “amen”), connotes faithfulness, trust – that’s relational. It suggests the ability to remain steadfast amid unsettling circumstances. This is the integrity of life. Theology it is said is “faith seeking understanding.” “Those who know God walk faithfully (I Kings 2:4; Isa. 38:3).” Abraham is the poster child of faith. Abraham Hershel notes, his life was not a “leap of thought,” but “leap of action.” He behaved his beliefs.