We come next to the subject of the weak conscience. In practice, this is an affliction confined to believers. Weakness in conscience can lead a person to have an emboldened, defiled or wounded conscience. These are the terms Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 8, one of two places where he deals with the matter of the weak conscience. The other is Romans 14, 15. One of Paul's aims in his earlier letter is to show the Corinthians the limitations of knowledge, including the self-knowledge that conscience provides. This was something they had not really appreciated in the past.
The subject that prompts Paul to write as he does in 1 Corinthians 8 and which he continues with in Chapter 9 more broadly and returns to and concludes in Chapter 10, is the matter of food sacrificed to idols. In the pagan city of Corinth it was common for meat to be offered to idols before being sold in the market place. You never quite knew when this had happened and when it had not. For some of the Corinthian believers this raised the question of whether it was right to eat meat that appeared to have been or that had been offered in this way.
As far as many were concerned, perhaps Jews and former Jewish proselytes in particular, it was not really an issue. In reality, idols are nothing at all so the fact someone thinks he has offered meat to a god that does not exist should not bother the conscience of a Christian one bit. Others, however, perhaps Gentiles with a pagan background in particular, were concerned about what was happening. For them it was against their conscience to eat such meat. In this case simply to say “do what is right” and “follow your conscience” was not enough. Because people's minds and consciences were telling them different things, it was becoming another source of contention and potential division in a church already prone to fragmentation.
Strong and weak
It is in the course of dealing with this issue that Paul refers to the strong and the weak brother or the one with a weak conscience. As we have suggested, the strong are most likely to be Jewish believers and the weak Gentiles with a pagan background. The term strong is not necessarily entirely complimentary and the term weak is not necessarily entirely pejorative.
The weak Christians in this case are those who (8:7) “through former association with idols, eat food as really offered to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled.”
Paul is clear that such an opinion is deficient. To think like that is a mark of immaturity.
1 Cor 8:4-6, 8 “Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that "an idol has no real existence," and that "there is no God but one." For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth - as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"- yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. ... Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do.”
Paul does not defend the point of view of the weak from the plain facts but he does defend the person of the weak from the tyranny of the strong. His opening remark is to the effect that love is far more important than knowledge. It is not enough simply to be strong, in the sense of knowing, rather than weak, in the sense of being ignorant. Rather, love is the paramount thing.
There is some debate as to what exactly constitutes the weakness of the weak conscience here. Clearly, the weakness in mind springs from the fact that this person is liable to be wounded or defiled, probably by being emboldened to go against his conscience. C A Pierce, referring back to Luke 17:1 and the verses that follow, quotes L S Thornton. He identifies the weak with the little ones of whom Jesus speaks and wants to put “inverted commas” around the word “weak”. He says it means “those whom you have the effrontery to despise as weaker brethren”. Pierce points out that the weak conscience is not necessarily the same as the over-sensitive conscience though we can see increased vulnerability in such a person.
It is important to stress that Paul's first concern is to defend the weak against the arrogance of the strong. However, as unhappy as he is with the strong, Paul is not happy for the weak to remain ignorant. It is, in fact, their ignorance that constitutes part of their weakness. The label weak may well also point to the fact that these believers were unstable. They had doubting consciences and were easily persuaded to go against them.
Whether a person considers himself to be weak or strong, he faces certain dangers when believers have a difference of conscience. It is all too easy to be encouraged or emboldened (verse 10) to go against conscience because of the example of a stronger brother. This leads to defiling, wounding or even destruction (verses 7, 12, 11). Of course, it is the person with the over-sensitive conscience who is most likely to face these dangers but wherever conscience is weak, that is uncertain, this danger lurks.
G C Berkouwer “Paul is here in no way implying the holiness of the consciences of the weak and of each individual – conscience can be related to idolatry! - he is simply concerned to protect the weak from a way of error in connection with something which for them is still a reality and therefore still plays a role in their total relation to God. The motif of Paul's warning is not the unassailability of the conscience, but love toward the weak.”
Mahatma Gandhi “there is a higher court than courts of justice and that is the court of conscience. It supersedes all other courts.” This is not a NT understanding of conscience.
Berkouwer agrees with the remark of the Catholic scholar Jacques Dupont “the novelty here is not Paul's, but the general Christian message, in which the conscience is not the final norm for conduct, but rather love, and in love not doing that which one's conscience allows - not as a limitation but as a manifestation of Christian liberty.”
The ideal is to have a strong conscience, that is a properly informed one. Believers ought to have strong convictions and ought to know how to exercise their Christian liberty with full peace of conscience, uninfluenced by the mere opinions of others. However, and this is Paul's main concern, if you really are strong, that strength is never to be used to bully the weak into submission to your point of view. Here, the Pharisaism that lurks in all of us can so easily raise its ugly head. Not only is it important for the individual adult Christian to act on the guidance of his own conscience rather than that of someone else's conscience but also there is a very real danger of wounding or defiling the weak conscience of a professed brother or sister or even destroying them.
Three categories
The helpful 1980 book Decision making and the will of God by Garry Friesen and J Robin Maxson, identifies three categories in connection with differences over conscience – the weaker brother, the convinced brother and the Pharisee. Believers may err to the right or to the left – towards Pharisaism on the one hand or towards weakness on the other.
1. Weaker brother - usually has a sincere belief on a matter but may not be fully convinced about it. He feels that he is in need of teaching rather than being the sort of person who wants to foist his opinions on others. Although at first surprised at the actions of others who differ from him, he is fairly easy to influence and can quickly be encouraged to go against his own conscience and so stumble in his Christian walk.
2. “Pharisee” - at the other end of the spectrum. He is fully convinced of the rightness of his own position and proudly refuses to consider that there might be another view. He wants everyone else to conform to his own viewpoint, even in the case of mature adult Christians who conscientiously disagree with him. He cannot bear the idea of others using their Christian freedom to act in a way that differs in some way from his own. Indeed, he takes offence at such behaviour. If he cannot eat it, wear it, listen to it, watch it, read it or use it, then no-one else ought to either!
3. What all Christians should be aiming at is to be humbly yet confidently persuaded on matters of conscience, while leaving room for making a correction, if they find that should prove necessary. We must recognise that there are differences on many matters among mature believers. Some Christians may object, eg, to wedding rings, mixed bathing, drinking alcohol, wearing or not wearing a tie, women wearing or not wearing hats in church, celebrating Christmas or Easter, addressing God as you or thou, writing of him rather than Him or Yahweh rather than Jehovah when referring to God, to mention just a few examples of the sorts of differences sometimes conscientiously held. We must accept that such differences exist and be willing to discuss such differences in a firm but friendly manner. Such a mature person will not be unduly influenced by the opinions and actions of others. On the one hand, he will avoid causing the weak to stumble and, on the other hand, causing the strong to be needlessly offended.
So, say I believe that it is okay to drink alcohol or to watch feature films and plays in a public place but I know that my fellow believer does not take that view. I do not keep my beliefs secret from him but I do avoid serving him alcohol or inviting him to see the latest film or musical. On the other hand, if I do not drink alcohol or watch feature films and plays in public places, though I may know other Christians who do, I will certainly put forward arguments for my view at appropriate times but I will not presume that because my fellow believer does such things he must be less of a Christian than I am.
Likely candidates
Friesen suggests four groups of people most likely to struggle with a weak conscience and so become vulnerable.
- Young adults in the process of leaving the parental nest and beginning to set down their own standards and norms, especially if they have been brought up in a particularly strict or legalistic way.
- Young converts, especially those who come from a licentious background that they have had to firmly reject. David Fountain similar when he drew an analogy between the awkward period some go through as teenagers and some of the difficulties of being a young Christian. Over-sensitivity in the young Christian is not necessarily a totally bad thing, he argues, but it is a stage that must be left behind at some point.
- Those who for one reason or another are unaware of the differences found from culture to culture. You may come from a culture where people always stand for prayer or to read God's Word or where all men wear neck ties to church on Sundays. Do not be offended when you come into contact with good Christians who sit to pray and read the Bible and whose menfolk may not wear a neck tie to church. Back in the 1950s, E A Nida gave a striking example of cross-cultural difficulties when he quoted an elder in an Ngbaka church in northern Congo saying “But we are not going to have our wives dress like prostitutes”. This was in reply to the suggestion made by a missionary that the women should be made to wear blouses to cover their breasts.
- Children of believers. Where children have been brought up with one particular set of rules, when they come up against those who have grown up with a different set of rules that seem more attractive, it can be tempting to thoughtlessly kick over the traces and leave behind almost all that has been learned.
Perhaps we can add a fifth category – those who for one reason or another, such as bad training, do not have a properly developed conscience but only one that is weak and immature.
As we have said, the person with the weak conscience is likely to be one who has an over-sensitive conscience. In a celebrated passage in The Institutes, dealing with Christian freedom, John Calvin warns against the miseries of an over-sensitive conscience
“The third part of Christian freedom lies in this: regarding outward things that are of themselves 'indifferent', we are not bound before God by any religious obligation preventing us from sometimes using them and at other times not doing so, as it suits us. And the knowledge of this freedom is very necessary to us, for, if it is lacking, our consciences will have no rest and there will be no end of superstitions. ... these matters are more important than is commonly believed. For when consciences once ensnare themselves, they enter a long and inextricable labyrinth, without an easy exit.
If a man begins to doubt whether he may use linen for sheets, shirts, handkerchiefs, and napkins, he will afterwards be uncertain also about hemp; finally, doubt will even arise over tow. For he will turn over in his mind whether he can sup without napkins, or go without a handkerchief. If any man should consider daintier food unlawful, in the end he will not be at peace before God, when he eats either black bread or common victuals, while it occurs to him that he could sustain his body on even coarser foods. If he boggles at sweet wine, he will not with clear conscience drink even flat wine, and finally he will not dare touch water if sweeter and cleaner than other water. To sum up, he will come to the point of considering it wrong to step upon a straw across his path, as the saying goes.”
There is some humour here for the outsider but not for the person with the over scrupulous conscience. I well remember as a young Christian getting tangled up over what was right or wrong for a Christian to do on the Lord's Day. It seemed to me that the Sunday newspapers delivered to our unbelieving home were well worth a miss, not only because of their dubious content but also because Sunday was not the day for discovering the “news of the world”. I was doing well with this until someone pointed out that perhaps I should be just as concerned about Monday's papers which had been prepared and printed on the Lord's Day. The point was made with some humour but it was all lost on me, a boy with a keen conscience who simply wanted to know what was right and wrong. I was only more bewildered and perplexed than I had been before.
When such a condition continues for any length of time, the continual uncertainty and the spiritual conflict can become unbearable. A person can become distraught, almost afraid to speak or act for fear of sin. Thankfully, like me, most young believers grow out of such immaturity but not always and many years of unhappiness and despair can be the result.
Hallesby speaks of a situation where “essentials and non-essentials become one confused mess”. A person has to speak about the things that are disturbing him to every believer he meets. He draws attention to the way an illness or a physical or mental disability can bring this sort of thing on in an otherwise mature believer. Where there is no apparent cause for it, we are perhaps best to look upon it as a temptation to despair.
What causes the conscience of an otherwise healthy and mature believer to become over-sensitive in this way? The chief problem is usually to do with a pre-occupation with the outward and theoretical side of religion rather than with what is inward and spiritual. This is the problem both with the weaker brother and the Pharisee. In both cases priorities are all wrong.
1. The Pharisee. The Pharisee is the person who has a critical spirit and attempts to bully others into conforming to his thinking. Such a person must be resisted, especially at the point where he begins to exert an unhealthy influence over the weak. We must seek to instruct his conscience from the Bible, as far as we can, so that his moral record conforms more accurately to what is found there. In practice, the Pharisee will not always reveal himself straight away. We usually have to begin by assuming that we are dealing with a weaker brother or sister. Our priority, therefore, must be love, love for our fellow believer. The person must be educated from God's Word and that is to be done with love. As Paul says, we must speak the truth in love (Eph 4:15). We should avoid a scolding attitude. Such people must be lovingly brought to see that (Rom 14:17) “For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit”
Hallesby advises anyone in this position not to “consult more than one spiritual adviser and preferably one who is experienced and truly wise. But consult such a person often and be candid with him. Let him enlighten you from the Word of God and the experience of older Christians. If you have found a loving, wise and firm spiritual adviser you will with his help and intercession little by little be set free from the hindrances which are annoying you and come into the persuasion of a sound and healthy conscience.”
Of course, there are dangers even in this approach but where it is taken as a short term expedient rather than a way of life over months or years and where the adviser truly is wise and wants to encourage an adult, mature biblical use of conscience then good will surely come out of such an arrangement.
The Eclectic society
The Eclectic Society (founded 1783) March 16, 1812, subject for discussion “Wherein does a truly religious tenderness of conscience consist and how is it to be distinguished from (over)scrupulosity of conscience?” Great question. Some of the helpful remarks made on that occasion included 12 distinctions which we will summarise.
1. Rule. Tenderness of conscience regards God's rule. Scrupulosity frequently regards rules of its own traditions.
2. Meaning. Tenderness of conscience takes the obvious bearing of God's rule. St Paul would urge the spirit of a rule. Scrupulosity generally rests itself on far-fetched inferences from the rule.
3. Light. Tenderness of conscience desires light. Scrupulosity is frequently obstinate and unwilling to admit light.
4. Weight. Tenderness of conscience deals chiefly with the weightier matters of the law, the inside of the cup and platter. Scrupulosity principally deals with trifles; the outside.
5. Spiritual. Tenderness of conscience has a tendency to promote the spiritual interests of the individual. Scrupulosity frequently has little or nothing to do with those interests.
6. Thoughts of others. Tenderness of conscience is candid and liberal toward others. Scrupulosity is generally uncharitable in its judgement of others. It makes men offenders for a word.
7. Good of others. Tenderness of conscience is anxious to promote the spiritual good of others. Scrupulosity is generally indifferent to such interests. It is zealous to win to a party.
8. Righteousness. Tenderness of conscience is associated with appropriate and full commitment to Christ. Scrupulosity is self-righteous.
9. Universality. Tenderness of conscience has a universal regard to the commands of God. Scrupulosity will sometimes take liberties beyond God's commands.
10. Tenderness of conscience respects the glory of God. Scrupulosity respects principally the honour that comes from man.
11. Tenderness of conscience is joined with humility and tenderness. Scrupulosity, in the unconverted, with bigotry and pride.
12. Tenderness of conscience is attended with sympathy for the scruples of others. Scrupulosity will anathematise other views.
The men also pointed out that tenderness and over-scrupulosity can sometimes live side by side in the same person and that Satan will try and lead the person with a tender conscience into over- scrupulosity, if he can.
It is important to maintain a distinction between a tender conscience and an over tender, a scrupulous or what we would call today an over-scrupulous one. In seeking to avoid having what we might best call an over-sensitive conscience we must not swing to the other extreme of having a conscience that is not sensitive enough.
Isaac Watts “Preserve your conscience always soft and sensible. If but one sin forces its way into that tender part of the soul, and dwell easy there, the road is paved for a thousand iniquities. And take heed that under any scruple, doubt or temptation whatsoever, you never let any reasonings satisfy your conscience, which will not be a sufficient answer or apology to the great Judge at the last day.”
In this connection, Charles Buxton is often quoted “It is astonishing how soon the whole conscience begins to unravel if a single stitch drops. One single sin indulged in makes a hole you could put your head through.”
As we have said previously, the Christian must not go against his conscience.
Rom 14:23 “But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.”
To go against conscience will serve only to desensitise it. Certainly we want our consciences to be better and better informed but as one American quipped “Quite often when a man thinks his mind is broadening it is more likely that his conscience is stretching”.
Commenting on Paul's understanding of conscience, Ridderbos “For a Christian not a single decision and action can be good which he does not think he can justify on the ground of his Christian conviction and his liberty before God in Christ.”
The way forward on any given moral question is always to follow conscience proper, while carefully seeking to educate the moral record from what is in the Bible. Where changes are felt to be necessary these should be implemented with great care and much prayer. Sometimes there will need to be some sort of sensitive explanation to fellow believers of the changes in conviction that have led to the alterations in practice.
Romans 14:5 “Everyone should be sure about their beliefs in their own mind.”
No comments:
Post a Comment