I do, however, want to note that “intellectual integrity” is a fairly recent historical construct,

Socrates? recent?

In the essay, when he used the word public (öffentlich), he basically meant published (veröffentlicht). He said scholars or pastors were bound to obey when performing their private duties for the state or church (what many of us would call public duties). But when exercising their reason in public, or in other words, when publishing for a readership (Leserwelt), he said they ought to be free to express themselves as they wished. I’m not exactly sure how that applies to the Church today, but I suspect that it’s largely true for most members. It’s usually only when the exercise of this freedom morphs into priestcraft or rebellion that people might run into difficulties.

First, as ZD Eve alluded to, it’s not the general principle here (few truths are so compelling as to require the abandonment of communities of belief or affection or of religious practice) that I see as particularly controversial, but instead what limits there might be to the idea.

And second (which is really just the flip side of the first), it occurs to me that the more robust this idea is, the more difficult (at least potentially) the church’s missionary efforts become. So, while this idea may have helped convince Aaron that he could and should stay in the church, presumably it will similarly convince others in different faith communities that they can and should stay in theirs. Moreover, doesn’t this idea implicate how insistent we are or should be that others abandon their communities for ours?

Again, great discussion all.

Similarly, we structurally couple with our church. We make a commitment to sufficient orthodoxy and orthopraxy to allow us to wear the shoe of our faith. Similarly, the shoe provides enough benefit to eventually re-form our foot. However, major changes in shoe or church will eventually lead to blisters, shin splints, surgeries, or a trip to shoe store.

Within the congregation wearing the same shoe as me, when I have concerns about the shoe, I am best able to evoke (Maturana would say “invite”) change by ensuring that my orthodoxy and orthopraxy are similar enough to the beliefs and behaviors of my fellow congregants that I’m not causing bunions in others. By remaining sufficiently aligned to maintain viability, I’m able to signal small differences that are assimilated, accommodated, and not rejected.

Like shoe in foot, or hand in glove—as is the more common LDS metaphor.

Too bad I can’t say this to people about science–most people get a tad upset when you suggest to them their intellectual background in any way invalidates their opinions.

It would be a dreary world indeed if only experts were allowed to hold opinions. Let us not confuse opinion with positive knowledge.

I’m a bit confused by this. Perhaps I understand ‘agency’ differently, but I don’t see any tension here. It is agency that makes such obedience possible. In fact, I would define agency as the “possibility of such obedience.”