Integrity

What is integrity? Various dictionaries say things like "adherence to ethical principles" and "soundness of moral character" and "honesty." That kind of thing. These are certainly reasonable definitions of the word. I think, however, that a closer look at the origin of the word might give a more robust understanding of it.

You can probably pick out the root on your own. The word is tied to "integer." You know, a math word. In math, an integer is a whole number. No fractions, no decimal points -- just a whole number. That's because the original term refers to "undivided." Well that makes sense in terms of math. But what about integrity?

In its purest form, then, "integrity" would refer to being one, to being a single entity, to being undivided. We all have a variety of ethical principles. In some cases they're quite high and in others not so much. We are opposed, for instance, to stealing, but taking office supplies from work? Not so much. We think it's important to obey the law ... except when it comes to things like traffic laws. Those are more like suggestions. We believe that people should be kind and courteous but often seem to neglect it ourselves. We all have these things going on. Just as prevalent, we will often be one person to one group of people and another to another group. One way with family and another with friends. One way at church and another at work. One way with fellow believers and another in private. This is the opposite of integrity.

Humans of varying cultures and religions and societies and every other division we experience will have a variety of values and ethics. There tends to be, however, some underlying shared values. Most of us are opposed to killing for fun, just to pick an easy example. Another is integrity. No matter where we fall on the ethical scale, most of us respect people of integrity. People who are consistent with their own beliefs and values. I can, for instance, totally disagree with a Peter Singer who believes that apes should have the same rights as children and that humans aren't human until they're demonstrably self-aware. It goes right along with his humanistic, naturalistic philosophy and is the logical outcome. I respect that consistency while thoroughly disagreeing with the philosophy.

And therein lies the problem doesn't it? In order to have the kind of integrity I'm talking about, you'd have to have a solid basis for your values. I believe, in fact, that most of us operate in a form of integrity -- a oneness -- but we're not aware of what that is. If you hold at church that stealing is wrong and practice theft at work, there is a common value underlying both -- self. What works. What I feel will do the best for me. And, of course, that's a bad value for followers of Christ. We're told to die to self (Matt 10:37-39). No, what we need is a solid basis from a reliable source of just what ethics we should be following and then aim to have integrity -- consistency -- with that source. Because when we rely on ourselves as the source, we clearly suffer from bad thinking (Rom 1:28, 12:2) and deceived hearts (Jer 17:9). We need a suitable source (2 Tim 3:16-17).

The question for you and me, then, is do we have integrity? Well, no, I guess not. We all suffer from some inconsistency. So a better question is do we recognize our own lack of integrity and are we working toward mending that? Perhaps you have the kind of integrity that is a singular commitment to self. That's not too uncommon; it's just not a good thing. At least, not for God's people. So does your private life and your work life and your church life and your social life -- all of it -- reflect an undivided ethic? Does your life reflect what God says both in public and in private? Are you aiming toward ever-increasing integrity?