Conscience 2 - Consciences strong and weak

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.”

Conscience 1 Gathering data, defining it

Our subject today is the conscience and I want to look at it in three sessions. First, I want us to consider what the Bible says about conscience and work out a definition of what it is.

Gathering data

We're all familiar with the idea of conscience. Everybody, it seems, has one. Your conscience speaks to you. It gives you a hard time maybe. Many different writers in many different fields have written many different things about it. We must get our ideas from God's Word.

Old Testament

There are no Old Testament references to conscience, not if you use an old or original version. Modern versions often introduce the word where the idea is present, though the word is not. It appears that the ancient Hebrews had no use for the term, perhaps because they received direct revelation so were, in some ways, less immediately aware of conscience. OT believers spoke more readily of their hearts reflecting on revelation. So, David says (Ps 16:7) I will praise the Lord, who counsels me; even at night my heart instructs me. Cf Ps 40:8 (your law is in my heart).

Adam The idea of conscience is certainly in the Old Testament almost from the beginning. When, after their sin, Adam and Eve hide in fear at the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day (Gen 3:8, 10) that is surely the earliest example of conscience at work.

Puritan William Bates says Adam's “conscience began an early hell within him”. “Paradise with all its pleasures could not secure him from that sting in his breast, and that sharpened by the hand of God”. Adam's soul was racked “with the certain and fearful expectation of judgement.”

Conscience is still at work a little later when Adam then Eve try to put the blame for their sin elsewhere (Gen 3:11-13). Even today our first instinct when sin is discovered is often the same. First - try to cover it up; if that fails, try blaming others.

Jn 3:20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed Gen 4:14 Cain says he will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me which sounds suspiciously like the terror of a guilty conscience, as several commentators notice.

Joseph and his brothers At the other end of Genesis you have the story of Joseph and his brothers. Several writers single it out as a story where conscience plays an important role.

Gen 37: first Reuben, then Judah, appeal to the consciences of the brothers. Reuben argues against killing Joseph, saying Let us not take his life … Shed no blood; throw him into this pit here in the wilderness, but do not lay a hand on him. Judah says they will gain nothing by killing their brother and hiding the fact. He suggests they sell him to the Ishmaelites instead, adding a direct appeal to conscience, for he is our brother, our own flesh.

Joseph's brothers act on a common fallacy. They figure it will be enough simply to take suitable precautions against their crime being discovered. What they forget is the conscience.

John King wrote "the one witness whose eyes they could not blind, the one informant whose voice they could not silence, the one judge whom they could not bribe." People tend to make no “careful provision against the subsequent remonstrances” of the monitor conscience foolishly thinking that if they can overcome its protests at the beginning all will be well in the end. They don't expect it to come haunting them after the event, as it so often does.

Despite great efforts to hide their sin, even wickedly brazening it out before their father, the truth eventually comes out. It is a striking story full of interesting twists and turns and it reminds us how dramatic God's providence can sometimes be. Their guilty consciences seem to sleep for many years but it is like a ticking time bomb waiting to explode. When they are unexpectedly forced to return to the very land into which they had sold Joseph and stand before him, unrecognised at first, their consciences suddenly awake again and began to speak at a volume they cannot ignore and with an authority they cannot resist.

Gen 42:21 tells us the very mention of youngest brother Benjamin stirred their consciences so that they said to each other surely we are being punished because of our brother. We saw how distressed he was when he pleaded with us for his life, but we would not listen; that’s why this distress has come upon us. Matthew Henry: Guilty consciences are apt to take good providences in a bad sense; to put wrong meanings even upon things that make for them.

Suddenly, the brothers vividly recollect the all but forgotten scene of yesteryear. Now it is as if it had happened the day before. A long time has passed but suddenly one event, one that took up just one day, looms exceedingly large on the horizon. They are forced to watch the replay in high definition and hear it in surround sound, the button set to replay. “The imperishable records of conscience” are unexpectedly and unwillingly brought into the light of day. A bolt of lightning illuminates the sky as conscience abruptly breaks through the dark clouds of suppression and denial.

Conscience is often active before any other informant, witness or judge speaks. It has the power to connect events in its own unique way, combining things otherwise distant, dissimilar and apparently detached from each other.

Later, a cup is found in Benjamin's sack and they say What can we say? How can we prove our innocence? God has uncovered your servants' guilt. (Gen 44:16). The reaction is prompted not by guilt for having stolen anything but guilt over what they'd done to Joseph.

When Joseph finally reveals himself, they are terrified, a terror again borne of a guilty conscience (Gen 45:3). Even after reconciliation, Jacob's departure again stirs conscience and they are fearful (Gen 50:15). As one writer puts it, a guilty conscience casts a long shadow.

Joseph suffered a great deal after being sold into Egypt but one burden he never had to carry was the burden of a guilty conscience. He knew that he did not deserve to be suffering as he was. Under God, this no doubt gave him a good deal of peace and consolation. In contrast, what a sense of condemnation his brothers laboured under. When Joseph himself was faced with temptation at one point, he stood firm because he kept conscience on the throne. He wisely traced the likely consequences of sin and responded to Potiphar's wife and her advances with a sincere and wise how then could I do such a wicked thing and sin against God? (Gen 39:9b).

The pain of sin's sting consists very much in the recollections of an awakening conscience. Suddenly, the enchantment is broken, the illusion over. Conscience wakes, like a giant from slumber, and the individual is forced to hear accusations he can't answer, charges he can't counter, reproofs he can't repel.

Other examples There are many other places in the Old Testament where the idea of conscience surfaces. Job (27:6) - ... my heart does not reproach me for any of my days. Gen 20:5, 6 Abimelech tells God he has acted with a clear conscience and innocent hands (NET) and God agrees. The hardening of Pharaoh's heart can be related to the subject of conscience. Moses' own conscience is seen to be at work (Ex 2) when, after killing an Egyptian, he is distraught to find he has been observed. On at least two occasions we see David’s conscience at work. 1 Sam 24:5 he is conscience-stricken for having cut off a corner of Saul's robe. 1 Sam 24:10 after he counted the fighting men. In 1 Sam 25:31 Abigail's words.

In the Psalms conscience is seen to be active. Ps 32:3, 4 is highly descriptive of the pangs of a bad conscience. Ps 38:3-5 is similar. Ps 51:10 expresses David’s desire for a good conscience. On the basis that everyone has a conscience the Law was given and the prophets preached. A striking example is how Nathan dealt with David following his adultery with Bathsheba (1 Sam 12).

The idea of conscience is in many places in the Old Testament then. How it may have operated in man as originally created in God’s image is debatable. What was the significance for conscience of the knowledge of good and evil? Puritan Richard Bernard asserts that conscience was in Adam before the fall but did not function as it later would. Instead, it witnessed to his goodness and bore sway so that he was obedient and able to know joy in God's presence. He suggests that conscience will function in a similar way in the glory of heaven.

New Testament

Gospels Turning to the New Testament, we find that the Gospels again make no direct reference to conscience, though the idea again there in the story found in John 8:1-9. In the Gospels, as in the OT, even when the term is not used, there is again reason to believe that Jesus has conscience in mind in some places. Eg Lk 12:57, Mark 3:5.

Paul and also Peter Most New Testament references to conscience are made by Paul. In fact, of the 30 or so that exist, around 21 are in his letters (3 in Romans, 12 in Corinthians, 6 in Timothy) 2 others are in sermons of his in Acts and 5 are in Hebrews [9:9, 14; 10:2, 22; 13:8], which if not by Paul reflects his style. The only other person to use the word is Peter (1 Pet 3:16, 21).

It is very much Paul’s word, then. Where did he get it? Some suggest it was a specialist word taken over from the Stoic philosophers but it has been demonstrated to have been an everyday word among the Greeks, going back, in one form or another, to at least the sixth century BC.

In a 1955 study, Conscience in the New Testament, C A Pierce suggests it was a catchword in the Corinthian church, a popular word used to encapsulate an idea. Paul, it seems, took up the word and used it first in correspondence with them and, subsequently, as part of his usual Christian vocabulary. Certainly Paul and other NT writers took up other Greek words and fill them with Christian meaning. Eg Saviour.

The New Testament, like the Old, is perfectly able to speak about conscience without using the word.

Gal 6:4 Each one should test their own actions. Then they can take pride in themselves alone, without comparing themselves to someone else. Conscience is not named but how else does one test one's own actions without making comparisons? 1 Jn 3:19-21 heart is used where conscience would fit equally well. This is how we know that we belong to the truth and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence: If our hearts condemn us, we know that God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything. Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God.

As we shall see, when we speak of conscience, we're really speaking of the heart or soul. The word is useful, however, for speaking of a specific function of the soul, namely its moral workings.

Romans 2:14, 15

The nearest the New Testament comes to a definition of conscience is Rom 2:14,15. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them.

A number of things emerge from this statement.

1. That everyone has a conscience, even pagans. The conscience belongs to man as man.

2. These verses help us to distinguish the various elements involved in making a moral decision. Although we use the word conscience in a general way to refer to the whole business of making moral decisions, there are, in fact, at least three clearly identifiable strands in the process.

(1) The requirements of the Law of God, which are written on every man’s heart.

(2) The conscience itself, which makes its judgements on the basis of the preceding element.

(3) There are a person’s thoughts or opinions. These come as he makes a decision on the basis of the mediation of conscience proper.

The Puritans and others noticed the correspondence between this threefold distinction and the practical syllogism, a way of reasoning found in the writings of Aristotle. The practical syllogism is an argument in three propositions.

1. A major premise stating some universal truth

2. A minor premise stating some particular truth

3. A conclusion derived from the two premises

So it may be that a man

1. From his moral record, learns the fact lying is wrong (maj)

2. His conscience, therefore, tells him that to make up a story about why he'd not completed the task he was required to complete would be a lie (min)

3. In his thinking or opinion, therefore, he decides to tell a lie would be wrong (conc)

Similarly, he may have

1. In his moral record he may know that bank robbers deserve punishment (maj)

2. His conscience acknowledges that he has robbed a bank (min)

3. In his thinking or opinion, therefore, he has to see he deserves to be punished (conc)

We will need to say more about Rom 2;14, 15 in a moment but first we simply note the significance of the verses and the fact there is a good deal of material on conscience in the Bible, more perhaps than we expect. This serves to underline the importance of the subject that we are considering.

Definition

Philosophers, psychologists and theologians down the ages have wrestled with the problem of conscience and have arrived at divergent conclusions. It is important to get a clear and accurate definition of what conscience is early on.

Confusion We have noted already that people are fairly familiar with the idea of conscience. They say “my conscience is bothering me”; “my conscience pricked me” or claim to have acted “in good conscience”. They know what it is to have something “on their conscience”. They know about a bad or a guilty conscience and, hopefully, a good one too.

Pierce has pointed out, however, that “of the number that make use of the word 19 in 20 perhaps may be ignorant of its true meaning”. This is no exaggeration. Think how other Bible words are employed in everyday language. People still speak, for example, of a thing being “as ugly as sin” or of being “more sinned against than sinning” but how often is the word understood in its biblical sense? It is similar with the word conscience.

Confusion over what exactly conscience may be is not something new. In the 17th century several authors remark on this. Westminster Divines John Jackson and Robert Harris it has “a thousand definitions and descriptions” is “a word of infinite latitude and great dispute” and “much talked of, but little known”. Other Puritans make similar observations.

There is evidence to suggest that the word has often been given such a wide range of meaning in everyday language that, though familiar with it, people rarely gave it an accurate biblical definition. Writers on conscience disagree, for example, on whether to think of it primarily as a human faculty or power, an act or habit or a created quality.

If it is found in the human soul, where is it found? The understanding, the will, where? Surely it is distinct from these. Not only do we tend to distinguish it from them but so does the NT. 1 Tim 1:5 distinguishes conscience from the heart; Tit 1:15 distinguishes it from the mind. In experience too, conscience demonstrates an independence not observed in those other faculties

.

Clarification – Etymology

New Testament Greek word syneidesis, which appears to be made up of two parts.

1. syn/sun suggests with/together. Synchronised swimmers co-ordinate their movements with each other, a symphony is performed by a number of instruments playing together at the same time.

2. The second part, eidesis, is from one of the Greek words for to know.

Conscience enables a certain knowledge – not the usual sort found in the understanding but a reflective knowledge over and above mere head knowledge.

Richard Bernard "A certain, particular, applicatory knowledge in man’s soul, reflecting upon himself, concerning matters between God and him."

The root meaning, then, seems to be to know together, joint knowledge or knowledge shared (with another). The Anglo-Saxon word for conscience inwit suggests inward knowledge but the Latin based word that superseded it, as in the romance languages, is from con-scientia, made up in exactly the same way as the Greek. Other European languages, though not all, are similar. Eg, Welsh cydwybod, Swedish samvete, Russian sovest.

This does not bring us directly to a biblical definition as there has been much debate over who shares the joint knowledge. Obviously, on one side is the person himself, but who is on the other? Many assume it must be God, a teaching often attributed to Augustine and taught by many others, including several Puritans, nineteenth century Romantic poets and Roman Catholic writers old and new. Eg American philosopher and convert to Rome, Peter Kreeft "the voice of God in the soul". The only biblical arguments advanced for this view are dubious references to Elijah's still small voice and appeals to 1 Pet 2:19, it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God. However, Peter clearly has in mind only Christians.

Some suggest the word's etymology proves conscience must reveal a knowledge shared with God. Thus we have definitions such as Ole Hallesby (1933) “that knowledge or consciousness by which man knows he is conforming to the moral law or will of God”. While not without merit, such definitions are premature and potentially misleading.

Clarification – Usage

Salaman Rushdie (Satanic Verses) "Names, once they are in common use, quickly become mere sounds, their etymology being buried, like so many of the earth's marvels, beneath the dust of habit. It is unwise to define a word in light only of etymology. How a word is used is far more important."

There is some disagreement about usage of the word synedeisis and related words but it is clear that these terms were not always in the context of moral judgements.

Christian Maurer (Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the NT) cites a famous example where Socrates' young disciple Alcibiades speaks of being conscious that he could put up no resistance to the power of his teacher’s arguments. There is no moral element involved. Least of all, in Greek thought, is there any necessary connection between conscience and God.

Even in the New Testament we find a related word being used in a context where conscience is clearly not intended. Acts 5:2 tells us Ananias with his wife’s full knowledge kept back money from the Apostles, while claiming it had been handed over. The word is synoida, “to know with another”. Ananias knew what he was doing and his wife knew too.

Then Acts 12:12, 14:6 (ESV) Peter realised and Paul and Barnabas learned a thing (NIV has the thing dawning on Peter, being found out by Paul and Barnabas). Words from the same family are again used. At their most basic, then, such words mean “to become conscious of”, “to realise”.

Heb 10:2 is very interesting. ASV speaks of worshippers who would have had no more consciousness of sins. The word used is the same as that found in verse 22 having our hearts sprinkled to save us from a guilty conscience (NIV. TCNT … purified by the sprinkled blood from all consciousness of wrong). It is only the added words for their sins that brings in the moral element.

Concise Definitions

Several Puritans, tending to lean to a greater or lesser extent on Medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas, attempted to define conscience concisely. Eg

• William Ames A man’s judgement of himself, according to the judgement of God of him.
• Samuel Ward (following Perkins) A part of the understanding in all reasonable creatures determining of their particular actions either with them or against them.
• William Fenner. The judgement of man upon himself as he is subject to God’s judgement. Like Ames, Fenner refers to 1 Cor 11:31, which he uses more simply to say, harking back to Perkins, that conscience is “a man’s true judgement of himself”.
• Jim Packer A rational faculty, a power of moral self-knowledge and judgement, dealing with questions of right and wrong, duty and desert, and dealing with them authoritatively, as God’s voice

From what we have already said, however, it is clear that we must not think of the conscience as a department of man’s personality or a faculty of his soul. It can be useful to speak in such terms for the purpose of study but it is important to realise that, in reality, conscience is simply one aspect of man’s personality, one function of his soul.

We have also seen that the “joint knowledge” is not necessarily shared with God himself. In fact, put simply, the conscience is man’s power of self-reflection and, particularly, self-criticism. Rehwinkel noted that the English word consciousness is made up in the same way as the word conscience. Consciousness is “awareness of”; conscience is narrower in meaning and refers to “a moral or ethical awareness”. “Conscience” he suggests “is a moral consciousness accompanied by a feeling of obligation and duty.”

Kenneth Kirk (The conscience and its problems 1933) reminds us that though we may write of conscience as a distinct entity we must recall that it “is myself so far as I am a moral man”.

Milton L Rudnick The self in the process of ethical deliberation and evaluation .... It is not someone or something else working in or upon man, but he moral self at work, involving all of a man’s rational and emotional faculties.

Conscience is an amazing thing, one of the elements in our make-up that distinguishes us from animals, mere brute beasts. Hallesby “very remarkable”, Bernard the principal part of God's image in man and what most resembles God in every man.

Conscience in Romans 2:14, 15 again

Given the threefold division that we saw in Rom 2:14, 15, it is clear that when we use the word conscience, we should really restrict it to the second aspect of making moral decisions, the making of judgements on the basis of what is in the moral record.

Some would suppose that conscience only acts in a negative, condemning way.

Emil Brunner (Divine Imperative) a “sinister thing” that “attacks man like an alien, dark, hostile power”.

Pushkin (Play Miserly Knight) “a sharp clawed animal, which scrapes the heart … an uninvited guest, annoying discourser, a rude creditor; and a witch, which dims the moon and graves.”

This may have been the Greek view but Paul points out that there are times when even the Gentile conscience can provoke thoughts that excuse as well as accuse. The Pagan can have a bad or a good conscience. Strictly speaking, of course, it is not conscience that is good or bad. We do not say a barometer is bad if it correctly predicts stormy weather; we merely say it is accurate. Certainly the Christian can have a good conscience (see 2 Cor 1:12, 1 Tim 1:19). Rom 2:14, 15 teaches the moral responsibility of all men.

Complexity

It is important not to think of conscience simplistically. Perkins talks of mind and memory assisting it, one is the storehouse and the keeper of rules and principles, the other the recaller of omissions and commissions. Bernard A Director or Judge in the understanding, a Register and Secret Witness in the memory. It also works in the will, heart and affections. All the other faculties work with it “as it commands the whole man in the execution of its offices”. Many Puritans pictured it as a court with the roles of registrar, witnesses, prosecutor, judge, executioner all carried out by conscience.

Such pictures are fine, provided that we remember the mysteries involved. The workings of conscience include the whole process of perceiving the requirements of God’s Law, assessing them, then deciding how to proceed or what judgement to give. The over-riding impression is one of “ought” or “ought not” but includes a whole host of mental perceptions and emotional feelings - comprehension of right and wrong; use of memory, mind and will; complacency or disquiet; shame or pride; delight or pain; anticipation of reward or punishment.

The sheer breadth of mental and emotional interplay involved can be gauged from the array of legitimate illustrations employed by different writers trying to bring out the varied character of conscience. Eg spy, watchdog, bloodhound, window, mirror, sundial, compass, barometer, plumbline, sail, lash, sword, alarm bell, GPS system, flight recorder or black box and sense of taste.

Characteristics

Christopher Ash (Pure Joy) helpfully singles out five features of conscience.

1. It speaks with a voice independent of us. It enables us to stand outside of ourselves and look at ourselves objectively. Hallesby “a sort of doubling of our personality”. We are, in a sense, able to stand outside self and pronounce judgement. We can to some extent offer unbiased judgement.

2. It speaks with a voice that looks backward and forward. Indeed, its judgements can concern past, present or future. In this latter role conscience acts more like a guide than a judge. Hallesby it is generally at its weakest during sin, in the present, but at its strongest after the event is past.

3. Other people can appeal to my conscience, as Paul does (Rom 13:5) when he tells believers they must submit to the powers that be, not only not to be punished but also for the sake of conscience.

4. God can appeal to my conscience. Ash's example Isa 5:3, 4 where God, referring to Israel as a vineyard, says And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, judge between me and my vineyard. What more was there to do for my vineyard, that I have not done in it? When I looked for it to yield grapes, why did it yield wild grapes?

5. One does not need a Bible to hear the voice of conscience. Ash notes how Joseph rejected the invitations to her bed extended by Potiphar's wife in Egypt (Gen 39). Even before the law, Joseph knew adultery was wrong. Another example - the opening chapters of Amos where the surrounding nations are declared guilty not on the basis of the law but accepted morality.

Conclusion

Richard Sibbes (2 Corinthians) what is conscience, but the soul itself reflecting upon itself? He says it is “the property of the reasonable soul and the excellency of it, that it can return upon itself.” Samuel Rutherford (Catechism) “the principal part of the soul”. When we speak of the workings of conscience, then, we are speaking, clearly, of the moral workings of the soul itself.

Despite what rationalists may have us believe, the conscience is not the result of evolution or a mere interiorisation of cultural norms or social mores. It undoubtedly bears witness to the culture and morality around us but this in no way explains its origin or function. It is not “the divine spark” or “the voice of God” as such. Spurgeon There is no more atrocious mistake made by divines than to tell people conscience is God's representative in the soul.

Having said this, we must say that it is important to hear it. Raymond Opperwall “the internalised voice of those whose judgement of a person counts with him. It is the inner voice that testifies for the moral authorities that we recognise.” It is not the voice of God but the person's own voice.

Rehwinkel “man himself speaking as a moral being to himself”.

God given, it cannot be removed. God himself has ordained and fixed it as a monitor within. We don't always like its witness. Sometimes we disagree with it. It is important to see, however, that the voice of conscience must not be ignored. We must learn to listen to our soul within.