Several people have rightly flagged @Jentezen ’s use of the phrase “a different kind of integrity” as unbiblical and nonsensical. It's also a reflection of the incoherence at the core of white evangelical political participation.
[short thread]
[short thread]
We all occupy a variety of social roles—e.g., spouse, parent, colleague, citizen, etc. I have integrity when I approach each of these social roles in a way that’s consistent with how I approach the others.
When I have integrity, all the different parts of my life are *integrated* into a single coherent identity—namely, me. By contrast, I lack integrity when I inhabit one social role in a way that is inconsistent with who I am (or pretend to be) in some other social role.
For example, if I lecture my ethics students on the importance of never treating another person as merely a means to your own ends, and then berate my waiter at dinner for mixing up my order, then I lack integrity: my role as teacher isn’t integrated with my role as consumer.
The opposite of integrity is a state of disintegration—a fragmented identity. My identity is fragmented when I move through the various social roles that I occupy without any real sense of the self that inhabits each role, or how those roles fit into the narrative of my life.
In modernity, as social roles multiply and the demands of each role become ever more remote from the social conditions in which our brains were designed to function, it’s not uncommon to feel that one’s identity is fragmented.
Hypocrisy is a mild form of fragmentation. The hypocrite lacks integrity not because he doesn’t know who he is, but precisely because he *does* know who he is—and yet, in some situation, he acts like someone he isn’t.
In any case, there's no such thing as “a different kind of integrity.” There’s integrity; and everything else is fragmentation or hypocrisy.
The white evangelical political consciousness is currently in a state of fragmentation. @Jentezen claims that the current administration is the most pro-life administration we’ve had in some time.
In terms of judicial appointments, the current administration is perhaps the most anti-abortion administration since Roe v. Wade made abortion a national policy issue. But the pro-life position isn’t just anti-abortion. It’s pro-*life*.
A pro-life administration wouldn’t withdraw food assistance from low-income families, aim to make healthcare harder to come by, or refuse to shelter asylum-seekers—many of whom are fleeing political instability created by decades of U.S. foreign policy.
Only a fragmented political consciousness would regard an administration that does all of those things as ‘pro-life’, rather than merely anti-abortion. Such is the collective political consciousness of many white evangelical voters.
Many say that they can't in good conscience vote for a candidate that isn't pro-life. And because they fail to recognize that *neither* candidate is truly pro-life, they vote for the the anti-abortion candidate that isn't pro-life.
