The Role of the Conscience in the Chrisitan Life

Morally, there are no things indifferent. Everything is either a sin or not a sin. When we speak of gray areas, we speak of things that the Bible does not explicitly condemn nor condone.

Consider a silly example everyone reading this will encounter this week. How much money should you spend for your dinner?

Should you be frugal? Eating rice and beans and whatever else is in the pantry?

Or should you offer thanks to God with a glad heart for a Filet Mignon and a baked potato?

If I spend more money on steak than I give in the offering plate, I might very well be in sin. Also, if I refuse to take my wife out for our anniversary because I want to save money, well I might not only find myself in sin — I might also find myself in counseling!

Neither one of these scenarios is sin in and of itself, surely no Christian would advocate such a thing. But each of these scenarios could be sinful, depending on the circumstance. That is, depending upon an individual’s conscience.

This is no clear-cut command like “Thou Shalt Not Murder.” This is more complex, and the complexity is where our conscience comes into play.

What is the conscience, anyway?

There are few things as confusing to us as our consciences. Paul tells us that our consciences accuse us (Rom. 2:15), and also that we should have clear consciences (Acts 24:16; Hebrews 13:18). And yet, while everyone has a conscience, there is not an incredible amount of teaching on the conscience in the New Testament. At times, it seems that Paul assumes his readers will understand what the conscience is, rather than taking the time to explain the conscience in detail.

This is because each of us, intrinsically, knows what a conscience is. The conscience is that part of our being that bears witness to whether something is morally right or wrong. Everyone has a conscience, whether it is a good conscience or a bad conscience.

For a Christian, there is nothing more helpful than a clear conscience. The well-known Confessions of the 17th century find remarkable agreement on this point. (Including Westminster, Savoy, and London)

Savoy states in chapter 21 paragraph 2 that:

“God alone is lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any thing contrary to his Word, or not contained in it; so that to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience; and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.”

The statement says the conscience is free from submission to:

1) Anything contrary to God’s Word - discounting the Bible’s authority.

AND

2) Anything not contained in God’s Word - adding to the Bible’s authority.

This is treating as divine law the commandments of men, which is so often the act for which the Pharisees are condemned in the gospels.

But notice the confession’s further instructions, that believing such doctrines, or obeying such commands out of conscience is contrary to the function of conscience.

Consider a silly example, which I hope none of us encounter anytime soon. Imagine the pastor of your church demanded that everyone in the church attend services barefoot, because Moses took off his shoes and was on holy ground, and we also want to be on holy ground.

Not only is this a bad idea, there is also no biblical evidence for the practice, especially in a modern, western culture like the one I am writing in. Obeying a command like this one out of conscience, the confessions would say, is to betray the right use of the conscience. One might feel free to obey it out of submission to an authority figure, in Hebrews 13:17 fashion, but this teaching must not be binding upon someone’s conscience. (Moreover, one might want to consider what other silly things the pastor will command his people to do if he is making commands like this one!)

Obeying this command because you think not obeying it would be a sin is the improper use of conscience. Scripture does not command it. Therefore, this command cannot bind the conscience, because the Lord alone is the lord of the conscience. There is no reason to think a command like this binds the conscience and that disobedience to the command is a sin.

The Reformers were adamant about preserving a free conscience because the Roman Catholic Church of the 16th and 17th centuries consistently bound people’s consciences to various extrabiblical norms. So, even if a pastor making a command like this is well-intentioned, we are not to simply consider that because some Christians, even godly Christians, insist this is the case that we are bound to obey this instruction.

This is to neglect the conscience that God has given to us.

William Perkins on the Conscience

William Perkins was an early Puritan writer. I have recently been reading the 8th volume of his collected works. In it, he has a remarkably helpful discourse on the role of the conscience. It dovetails nicely with what we have seen in the confessions. Perkins writes:

First, whatsoever is done with a doubting conscience is a sin. Example. Some believers in the primitive church held that still after the ascension of Christ there remained a difference between meat and meat, and therefore it was a scruple to them to eat of sundry kinds of meats. Now put the case, by example they are drawn on to eat swine’s flesh or some other thing which they think is forbidden. And there is no question but in so doing they have sinned, as Paul proves: “I know and am persuaded through the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself: but unto him that judgeth anything unclean, it is unclean” (Rom. 4:14). “He that doubteth is condemned if he eat: because he eateth not of faith” (v23).

Second, whatsoever thing is done with erroneous conscience is a sin. Example. In the primitive church, divers of the Gentiles held this error, that fornication was a thing indifferent, and therefore, conscience told them that they might do it. And yet nevertheless, fornication in them was a sin, because conscience erred in her judgment. And evil remains evil though conscience says the contrary a thousand times.

Third, what is done against conscience, though it errs and is deceived, is sin in the doer. Example. An Anabaptist, holding it utterly unlawful to swear, is brought before a magistrate, and urged either through fear or some like cause, takes an oath, and that agianst his own conscience. Now the question is whether he has sinned or not? Answer. He has indeed sinned, not so much becasue he has taken an oath, for that is the ordinance of God: but because he has taken an oath in a bad manner, that is, against his conscience, and therefrore not in faith.”

This is a succinct way to consider the role of the conscience for the Christian. In the first case, if the Jews were not certain they could eat pork, they were not to eat it. To partake of something your conscience is not convinced is right is actually wrong. Perkins says it is sin for them to eat pork because they think it is sinful to do so, not because eating pork is always sinful. This is what we can call a doubting conscience.

The second case is clearer and more straightforward. The Gentiles believed fornication was not sinful. Regardless of what their conscience might say, they are condemned. Even though they were obeying their conscience, that does not mean they are innocent. Fornication is not a thing indifferent, no matter how many people say otherwise. This is what we can call an erroneous conscience.

The final case is interesting because Perkins asserts that an Anabaptist who takes an oath is sinning, not because the oath in itself is sinful, but because the Anabaptist believes taking an oath is sinful. Many protestant denominations thought it was acceptable to take an oath in a court of law, the Anabaptists excluded. This is distinct from the first case only in terms of subjective appeal. The Jews of the primitive church were not convinced what they were doing was acceptable according to conscience, they had a doubting conscience. The Anabaptists knew what they were doing was against their conscience. They had an erring conscience. That is, their conscience is “miscalibrated” according to the clear teaching of Scripture, to condemn acts that out not be condemned. Nevertheless, Perkins articulates that the Anabaptist should obey his erring conscience, even though it is miscalibrated because to go against one’s conscience is always sinful. According to Perkins, obeying a doubting conscience and disobeying a misinformed conscience are sinful acts.

Journeying out of Puritan England

These hypothetical situations seem out of touch to us. But they could not be more useful to our 21st-century conversations. As I mentioned above, how much money is acceptable to spend on dinner? What TV shows will you watch or choose not to watch? What kind of car will you drive? What time of day will you do your devotions? What kind of school will you send your kids to? How much money will you contribute to the church? What kinds of clothes will you wear to church? All of these questions are issues of conscience. And I bet no two people attending the same church answer all these questions in the same way. Understanding the role of conscience is important for our corporate life together as Christians.

The worst way to answer these questions is to simply adopt what someone else does. This simply makes your conscience obey someone else’s conscience, and this is not how God has created you to live. Instead, you should follow other Christian’s examples insofar as they follow Christ, who is our ultimate example. Jesus had no problem violating the consciences of the Pharisees, we must remember. When Jesus fails to watch his hands in Luke 11, the Pharisees did not think Jesus was disagreeing with them. They thought he was sinning. Jesus shows us this is not the case.

How should we think about the conscience?

1) Know that the conscience is not infallible.

My conscience has changed over the years. I used to not object to certain things that I now do object to. I am sure yours has as well. From what I wear to how I talk to all sorts of nonessential issues. Sometimes my conscience has allowed me more freedom, other times it has compelled me to be more strict in my decision-making. Our conscience is not an infallible rule of what is right and wrong. Nevertheless":

2) The conscience should be obeyed.

The conscience, while not being infallible, should always be obeyed. It is a gift from God to all people. Imagine a family in your church buying a new car. Imagine your conscience telling you that it is wrong to spend that much money on a car. Then, you should not spend that much money on a car, even if another family in your church feels they might do so. Obeying your conscience is a road to freedom.

Nevertheless, this does not automatically mean that the other family in your church is in sin. They might have a different conscience than you do. Or, perhaps their conscience needs to be recalibrated. This leads to a third point:

3) The conscience should be calibrated according to God’s Word.

I first heard this term in an excellent little book by Andy Naselli. In much more detail, he sketches what I have attempted to assert above. The more we learn of God’s Word, and allow him to calibrate our consciences, the more we will learn to live in freedom under Christ’s Lordship.

The call to obey conscience is not a call for either legalistic Pharisaism or antinomian practice. Rather, obedience to the conscience while rightly calibrating it according to the Word of God is the only way a Christian can be truly free in Christ (Gal. 5:1).

We should be reminded, none of us will be saved by our conscience. Jesus Christ and he alone will save us from our sins. But as we live this Christian life, we must learn to inform our consciences, obey them, and love those who have different consciences than we do. It is ok to disagree on where exactly our consciences inform our specific behaviors on disputable matters. However, it is always wrong to despise a brother or sister for whom Christ died whenever they disagree with our specific conscientious objections.

Here is a final example that I hope will be clear without being controversial. I enjoy running. When I run, I wear shorts that are short enough to allow my legs to move freely, and long enough for what I consider to be public decency. I don’t feel what I wear is inappropriate. However, some folks, even devout Christians, might think men should never wear shorts, even for exercise. Am I required to wear pants because another individual disagrees with me?

No. I am free in Christ to obey my own conscience on this matter, not the conscience of someone else. God has not given to me my brother’s conscience, he has given me my own. It is my job to inform and calibrate my conscience according to God’s Word. As Paul says, in 1 Corinthians 10:29 (ESV)

29 I do not mean your conscience, but his. For why should my liberty be determined by someone else’s conscience?

So what about my brother who insists I run wearing long pants? Well, if I am going to run with an individual who thinks that way, I will gladly wear pants, for the sake of his conscience. I should not insist that he wear shorts, for that would be asking him to sin against his conscience. We can run together and enjoy that time, even while I am accommodating myself to his conscientious beliefs.

However, if I am running by myself, I am under no obligation to wear pants. Neither Scripture nor my conscience requires it. I don’t say this because I dislike my brother who disagrees, but because our consciences are different in this matter. I do this for the sake of my conscience, to keep me from being needlessly burdened by extra-biblical principles.

This might be a good time to point out that this is a matter about which Scripture is silent. If there is an explicit biblical command, it is to be obeyed. In this case, it is not, which causes this to be a case of conscience which Christians much work out in wisdom.

Operating in the way I have described above keeps Christians from two dangers concerning the conscience:

Conformity and Condemnation.

Conformity of conscience means everyone always accommodates to the lowest common denominator. That is, the most sensitive conscience is the conscience that is obeyed, and not just by the individual possessing that conscience, but everyone. Let it be known neither Jesus nor Paul advocated living in this way, for Jesus refused to conform to the consciences of the Pharisees, and Paul likewise to the consciences of the Jews, hence the long discourse on eating meat in both Corinthians and Galatians.

The problem with conformity to another’s conscience means that there often cannot be a diversity of opinions about non-specific matters within the same church. Everyone looks, thinks, acts, and dresses the same. One might champion that this is what unity in Christ looks like, but let’s remember that the Pharisees were also remarkably unified in their activities.

A second problem is the condemnation of another’s conscience. That is, everyone does whatever he or she wants without respect for another brother or sister with a different conscience. Paul warns very clearly in Romans 14 that we should not cause the one for whom Christ died to stumble back into their old ways of sinfulness.

We must not only live by our own consciences but make sure we don’t ask other Christians to conform to our conscientious objections. We must learn to live according to Philippians 2, counting others as more significant than ourselves.

It is so important that we have a healthy category for conscience as Christians. This will help us to love each other more fervently, agree to disagree more charitably, and, hopefully, help us all to be more holy.

So calibrate your conscience according to the Word of God, because there are no gray areas. And also, in service to Christ, learn to love those who have different consciences than you do, because Christ is the Lord of their conscience as well.