It is often said, "Let your conscience be your guide". Just what is the conscience and how does it work? The conscience is our organ of moral discrimination between right and wrong. We were created with a moral capacity. As far as we know, humans are the only creatures on earth with a conscience. Other animals function by instinct. That moral consciousness is empowered by anything we consider to be right or wrong. That becomes moral law to us.
That law is determined by the values we accept. It is also affected by our moral sensibility, the degree to which we understand the moral implications of our choices. These are determined by the standards we've learned, those which have been modeled for us, and by our concern or conscientiousness about doing right. One person may, in good conscience, do something that offends another's conscience.
Wouldn't it be better then, to have a dumbed down conscience? No, for if the conscience is based on good judgment, it can be a great help. A lack of moral discrimination is, in a spiritual sense, comparable to being blind. One may not experience guilt for a wrong act, but the natural consequences will, nonetheless, be forthcoming.
Many have wondered why the Bible makes so much use of law. The sacrifices for sin seem, to many, to aggravate our tendency towards legalism. Why does the Bible seem to reinforce this perspective?
It might be better to turn this around. Is it not our conscience that deals with moral issues legally, necessitating that God meet us along these lines? God establishes the law to restrain our behavior and to create a need for grace. He deals with our guilt through justification -- "By the works of the law shall no flesh be justified" (Gal 2:16). He then uses the law to catalyze the experience by which we are led out of our rigid, old covenant, relationship to moral issues. For "through the law I died to the law [covenant]" (Gal 2:19).
Before conversion we are strongly motivated by our need life. We find a somewhat peaceful coexistence with our conscience through some good works and a perceptual snow job. We attribute good motives to acts accompanied by a significant amount of selfishness. With conversion, we see that our selfishness is contrary to love, the real law of life.
When we become Christians, basking in the freedom we find in forgiveness and in God's love, we are motivated by that love. With time, unaware of the downside to the conscience, we continue to learn more truth. Our conscience is empowered (Rm 5:20). We find what should be a faithful guide, the law, becomes a source of guilt, condemnation and bondage (Rm 7). What should be a light unto our path (Ps 119:105), becomes a source of death. We have not yet learned to live under grace where everything is positively and appropriately motivated.
The conscience, functioning as moral authority (that to which I feel morally responsible), deals with truth legally. It is by nature, rigid and inflexible. This creates a problem (Rm 4:15). It is not the truth the conscience seeks to enforce, but the way it is dealt with that takes the heart out of our actions. We loose our freedom and our first love. We begin to function under the constraint of law or rebel for the freedom to act from his heart is gone.
The solution to this problem, for many, is to blame the law. They see that as the law increased, their freedom decreased. Therefore, the natural reaction is to blame it. If the law was at fault, then we should lie, murder and commit adultery to be free of its constraints. That is obviously absurd.
The conscience can be a useful guide. Due to its moral nature it cannot be ignored. However, condemnation and pressure are not God's methods for change (Rm 8:1). The new covenant changes the nature of our relationship to law by bringing our conscience under the authority of grace. This struggle, learning a new way of dealing with moral issues, leads to true spirituality.
Why is it so important to reposition the conscience? If the conscience, functioning as moral authority, is considered the voice of God to the soul, it distorts the nature of that relationship making it rigid, oppressive and counterproductive. The conscience convicts us of sin, but left to itself, creates the need for self-justification and encourages legalism. It forces many, who would be free, into what seems to be the only other option, rebellion.
Many believe this problem is eliminated simply by defining the law as love. However, any truth, even love, can be experienced in the context of the old covenant. Unless we have a new covenant relationship to truth, the old covenant will impose it on our lives bringing us into bondage. Many a conscientious Christian, being bound by a conscience dominated morality, has never truly experienced the freedom intended in grace and therefore lacks the fruit of that experience.
Paul, in Romans 14 and I Corinthians 8, speaking of meat sacrificed to idols, deals with this issue. He uses two different terms to speak of a person with a rigid conscience. The term in I Corinthians 8 is a weak conscience. The term in Romans 14 is a weak faith. We can clarify things by harmonizing these two perspectives. Let's consider the following texts (NIV).
· Speaking of meat sacrificed to idols, Paul states, "Since their conscience is weak, [seeing things from a rigid and legal, rather than a relational framework] it is defiled. … we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do" (I Cor 8: 7 & 8).
· "When you sin against you brothers in this way [by eating meat sacrificed to idols] and wound their weak conscience" (I Cor 8:12).
· "One man's faith allows him to eat everything, [giving him appropriate freedom and flexibility] but another mans, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables" (Rm 14: 2).
· "If anyone regards something as unclean [morally wrong ], then for him it is unclean [due to conscience]" (Rm 14:14).
· "Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves -- [not having a conscience that is inappropriately punitive]. But the man who has doubts is condemned . . . because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin" [because it offends his conscience] (Rm 14:22, 23).
What is the definition of a weak conscience and is it the same as a weak faith? A weak conscience is dominated by a rigid morality. Those individuals fail to understand the appropriate nature of our relationship with God. Their conscience sees morality simply as laws, right and wrong. It lacks the flexibility that results when we see things in the context of a relationship that allows freedom, dialog and room to grow. The term weak could easily be replaced by rigid or overbearing. The person with a rigid conscience does not have the room to evaluate moral choices appropriately. He is simply compelled to act.
The weak conscience is also a weak faith in that it is unable to grasp the true nature of grace. They cannot overrule the inappropriate attitudes of their conscience by replacing them with God's understanding and flexibility.
Appropriate faith sees God's way as good making compulsion unnecessary. A weak faith fails to grasp the fact that a good God leads us in a good way. It is constantly taking a sideward glance at the "goodies" in the world and, therefore, fears real freedom.
A weak faith often fails to internalize appropriate values
leading to the necessity of being under the authority of law. Spiritually immature,
those with a weak faith fail to see the harm in many sinful things. They do
right only because it is right. They may, being converted, want to do right,
in a generic sense. However, having failed to struggle with the issues of right
and wrong, they are unable to see and appreciate the principles behind appropriate
choices.
Nowhere does Paul state that the strong or the weak can, with impunity, ignore
our conscience. Rather, Paul states that we should bear with the weaker brother
until his faith can mature. A mature faith has internalized proper values and
placed the conscience under grace.
In reality, what Paul defines as weak would normally be defined as a strong conscience. Such a conscience rigidly imposes right upon a person for any and all potentially moral issues. Whether these should be issues, whether they should be on his plate at the time, whether he has internalized them or not, it cares not a wit. It simply demands compliance or condemns with guilt.
A rigid moral atmosphere is the basis for legalism, not law. A person who understands grace can have a plate full of law (truth), yet have the flexibility and freedom to deal with it in a manner that allows for real growth.
An imposed morality is not an act of love, nor does it promote
love. Conversely, permissiveness, a dumbed down sense of moral responsibility,
can ignore law with impunity. That state is worse than legalism for it can be
falsely construed as grace. It releases us from the constraints of law by negating
our responsibility to it. By eliminating our responsibility to the standards,
guilt is lessoned but not the consequences of wrong choices.
Many see the conscience as a contrivance of religion. It is believed that morality
is simply learned. To understand the nature of our morality, we need to see
it in its three components: law (what we should do), the authority behind it
(church, parents, society or possibly a shrink) and the enforcer (conscience).
I believe there is a moral file, the conscience, in our minds. It must have law backed by authority in order to function. That is the learned component. That file is our inner judge, the enforcer. As we gain an understanding of right and wrong, this internal judge holds us accountable. The law indeed must be learned, but that moral file is innately there. It has to do with our ability to reason from cause to effect and observe ourselves. This allows us to understand the implications of our actions, something we call moral discrimination.
The distinctive nature of human morality can be clarified as
compared to that of a dog. When a dog hangs its head because it knows it did
something wrong, as defined by the law we've laid down, it does not feel guilt,
but simply fears that it will be punished. The dog will feel just fine about
doing wrong unless the judge or owner is around to act as enforcer. It does
not have a conscience to fill that role.
When we function according to lower levels of moral development (restraint through
punishment, or authority) it is not unlike how a dog relates to right and wrong.
The authority is external. The difference for the dog is that the enforcer must
also be external. He has no inner enforcer but instinct, which doesn't function
according to right and wrong.
Until we internalize law, the authority behind it is external - church, or authority figures. We don't necessarily believe in the law, but we believe in them. This is where psychology gets the idea that the conscience is learned, or a contrivance of religion. They have failed to make the distinction between the authority and the enforcer. Even those with an internal authority, believing in the truth, can have that law imposed on them by their conscience unless freed by grace.
Lack of maturity is defined by, needing, and living by, an
external authority. We act because "they" say it is right. The mature
act because we believe in the goodness of the right. We have thought through
the issues and have come to our own conclusions.
Irrespective of the source, when the law has been given authority, the conscience
will act. Until then it leaves us alone (Rm 7:9). It is there nonetheless. When
we internalize law, we have the potential to be free, being self-policed, but
we are not, because the conscience will continue to rule over us. Only grace
can change this situation. Grace allows for the nature of the enforcer to change
from the conscience to the positive motivation of God's love and our desire
to benefit from His guidance.
The secular world believes that this morality business is arbitrary - simply taught. It believes that teaching of right and wrong is the problem that leads to rigidity and guilt. They couldn't be more wrong. They only see the "damned if you do" component of the equation. They forget that if we do away with law we put out the eyes of our moral discrimination. There are still innate consequences: "damned if you don't".
"For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them" (Rom 2:14&15).
With the fall, the transformation from goodness to guilt and
self-justification was instantaneous. That guilt did not need to be learned.
Adam and Eve had never known it before, but it hit them with a vengeance. Eating
from "The tree of knowledge" was the awakening of a guilt or a conscience
driven morality. The nature of the enforcer defaulted to the conscience, which
now imposes its will on us.
Copyright Patrick Fagenstrom, 10/03: edited 12/05