Prolegomenon
I recently wrote an article which recognized the various spheres of authority in this world, taken from a biblical perspective, which can be found here. That article was a rather general overview, and as such left open room to explore how these truths may be applied. Based on that initial article, I wrote a follow-up that explained one direct application of biblical authority in the realm of Christians and v---ine mandates (found here). That second article generated a fair amount of conversation from various circles – conversation that was certainly greatly appreciated. This topic is clearly pressing hard upon Christians in many settings, and the surrounding conversation has become so incendiary that even using the precise nomenclature must be avoided due to filters (hence, the dash marks above).
The contention of the second mentioned article was essentially a plea or defense for the recognition of the biblical category of Christian conscience. This was written with the expected audience of the outside world (potentially including employers and HR departments), while also continuing a conversation among Christians. There is more to the current social discussion than Christian conscience alone (again, see the first article mentioned), but Christian conscience is certainly a valid biblical category that should be recognized in the ongoing conversation.
What was surprising, then, was to subsequently hear public figures (some of whom are professing Christians) who have insisted that there is no such thing as the Christian conscience. They maintain that such a thing is merely an excuse for Christians to do what they want under the guise of religious conviction. It is no surprise that non-Christians may reject any such category, but for Christian leaders to do so is a bit… disconcerting.
Others, however, have simply wondered what the Christian conscience is, and how to apply it. That is an understandable struggle. Is this an extra-biblical category that we simply define for ourselves? Does this give license for each man to act as both law-giver and judge in his own affairs? It will not do for us to parrot Justice Potter, declaring that we define conscience as “I know it when I see it” – good doctrine is doctrine that is correctly applied, after all.
Some qualifiers and a few Greek words
Let me set some parameters for what we are talking about when we say “conscience.” Like many biblical words, we often assume that we agree on the meaning, right up until that pivotal point that we begin making application and realize we have been using the same word for very different things (e.g. “sovereignty” immediately comes to mind). And as an appropriate exercise of apophatic theology (and a way of warding off potential miscommunications), let me say what I do not mean by “conscience.”
I do not mean that your conscience is your guide. Your conscience is not a benevolent voice inside you or on your shoulder, directing you toward your inner good or path. On this count, Jiminy Cricket most certainly misled Pinocchio, and it is no surprise he found himself in Monstro’s belly. As Christians, we affirm that the heart is “deceitful above all things” and “desperately sick” (Jer 17:9), and we accordingly judge all things by the Word of God and not by our own feelings or inclinations.
Neither do I mean that your conscience is God speaking directly to you. God has spoken in many times and in many ways, and these are recorded and preserved for us in Scripture, culminating with the Person and work of Jesus Christ (Heb 1:1-2). We therefore affirm that Scripture is sufficient for faith and practice, and that we do not seek further special revelation to live godly lives (2 Tim 3:14-17). Our conscience is not God whispering secret plans to us – we ground our convictions and beliefs in Scripture alone (sola Scriptura).
Further, I do not mean that the conscience is a blank check for your behavior. I cannot simply exercise my every whim and desire and attribute this to “conscience” – to do so would be wrong-headed at best, and sinful at worst. In keeping with this observation, I also do not mean that the conscience is a license for practicing legalism or its ugly twin antinomianism – we cannot abuse the category of conscience to enforce rules that God has not set, nor to reject rules that God has laid down. Christ is the Lord of all of life, and that includes your conscience.
So then, what do I mean by conscience? At the most basic level, the word carries the sense of ‘knowing something together,’ or ‘being aware’ or ‘conscious’ of something. In biblical terms, the word conscience is often found rendered as lēḇ (Hebrew – “heart”), syneídēsis (Greek), or conscientia (Latin). As with most words, we learn more about the conscience when we see how it is referred to: it can act as a judge of our behavior (2 Cor 4:2); it can affirm the conscience of other believers (2 Cor 5:11); it is directly related to our faith and love (1 Tim 1:5); it can be negatively affected by persistent sin (1 Tim 4:2); it can reflect our own weaknesses (1 Cor 8-10); and it must not be violated (1 Cor 8:9-13).
There are dozens more examples of conscience in the New Testament, but one is particularly relevant to this discussion, as it has to do with authority:
“Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience [syneídēsis].” – Romans 13:5
Romans 13 has been a passage under much scrutiny recently, and it bears noting – our conscience is directly tied to our submission to biblical authority in this world. We cannot simply dismiss conscience from this conversation – it lies near the heart of this discussion.
That tricky bit about application
We recognize that there are biblical authority structures, and we recognize that there is a biblical category for conscience, but how do we apply this without making a mess of the whole situation? I may recognize that it is important to stay healthy, and that a proper diet and regular exercise contribute significantly to maintaining health, but how exactly do I set about the work of exercising? Application is often where the cart-horse turns an ankle, and there is an abundance of pot holes at work here.
Applying biblical principles is a bit like driving in the snow (stand by for a distinctly Midwestern illustration). We learn what the Bible says and build our theology accordingly, the same as we learn to drive and subsequently secure the proper license to do so. But when we venture onto the road, unforeseen challenges (i.e. the snow; or, in this illustration, unexpected social challenges) have obscured the roadway, and we are left relying on the snow poles on either side to keep us from crashing our car. The snow poles (i.e. the markers that guide our application, so to speak) do not cover every inch of roadway, but they give us sufficient guidance to move our car in the right direction with some confidence. The snow poles do not give us comprehensive knowledge of every bump and imperfection in the surface, but they do give us sufficient direction to handle the challenges of the road as they are presented. This analogy is stretching a bit thin, but I think you understand my point. So at the risk of even further confusing the issue, let me offer a practical example from another controversial biblical category.
Should Christians drink alcohol? As I said, introducing this topic may derail this discussion altogether, but at least it should keep things interesting. Let me use the consumption of alcohol as an illustration of how we might set about applying the biblical principle of Christian conscience to a real-world situation. We might begin with some basic biblical observations: alcohol is not a sin, though drunkenness certainly is – that should have sufficiently clear biblical precedence (for further, see Gen 14:18; Exod 29:40; Lev 23:13; Judges 19:19; 1 Sam 1:24, 16:20; Ecc 10:19; Isa 25:6-8, 55:1-2; Amos 9:13; Zech 10:7; Luke 22:7-23; Matt 11:18-19; 26:27-29; John 2:3; 1 Cor 11:17-32; cf. Isa 5:11, 28:1-7; Eph 5:18; Titus 2:3). With hundreds of biblical references to wine and alcohol to work through in Scripture (not to mention the accompanying topics that bear on this matter), we may spot the most prominent ‘snow-poles’ that indicate that alcohol is not bad, though its abuse surely is.
Based on those biblical standards, many have chosen to abstain from alcohol altogether. There may have been a family history of alcohol abuse that spurred this conviction, or their own convictions about personal health, or a persisting fear of abusing alcohol and thereby falling into sin. Whatever the case may be, a Christian may arrive at a principled personal decision that alcohol, for them, is not what they are convinced is godly and beneficial in their lives. They conclude that it is a potential impediment, and they resist its use.
Because it is a personal conviction, those Christians ought not impose those standards on other Christians. Because it is a matter of their own conscience, they recognize that Scripture has not commanded that everyone abstain from alcohol, they simply are convinced in their conscience that this is what Scripture has led them to. The “teetotaler” tent revivals that promoted the enforcement measures of the temperance movement are not in view here – we are speaking of Christians who rightly exercise personal convictions of conscience in their own lives, while not conflating those convictions as a rule for others (prescribing a law where there is no law, to use biblical language). Further, this is not a conviction based on a whim – it is a conviction based on biblical reasoning. Drunkenness is a sin, and sin is a threat and danger to me, and I am called to glorify God – therefore I choose not to drink alcohol (or some similar sentiment).
Because Christians may be convicted not to drink, other Christians who do not share this conviction of conscience should not try to force the convicted Christians to drink. It is quite possible (even probable) that two such Christians share fellowship in a church together. One enjoys a responsible drink at times, while the other enjoys abstaining from drink. Both Christians may recognize the same biblical principles (drunkenness is a sin) while arriving at differing personal convictions of conscience – that does not make their convictions arbitrary or capricious, nor does it mean that both cannot share true conviction that arrived at different conclusions. Both are convicted in their conscience, though certainly each with biblical precedent (and if one does not arrive at a conclusion based on biblical precedent, he should revisit Scripture and form his beliefs accordingly).
Further, these two Christians in question – let’s call the one who abstains Ted, and the one who partakes Jimmy – must exercise charity toward one another in these matters. Ted cannot see Jimmy with a glass of wine and proceed to angrily slap it from his hand and demand that he forthwith abstain from alcohol in the future – that would be enforcing a law where there is no law, and it would violate Jimmy’s conviction that he is called to enjoy wine as a gift from God. On the other hand, Jimmy cannot see Ted abstaining and attempt to force or coerce Ted to share a drink with him – that would, again, be making a law where there is no law and doing violence to Ted’s conscience. This is why Scripture contains the category of Christian conscience and pleads with us to exercise charity toward one another in those matters.
But now what?
Where does this leave us with v---ines and Christian conscience? Here is where we must keep the biblical markers in sight as we make appropriate application. “Love thy neighbor” is a powerful biblical admonition, but simply citing such a verse does not justify unilateral movement in either direction on this issue (and on that note, it is important to walk through how we are to love neighbor). A singular proof-text rarely captures all that Scripture brings to bear on a subject, and this is no exception.
There are a host of issues at play in this conversation, but let us stick closely to the main point for the sake of this article: it is quite possible for two Christians to share fellowship together while their Christian conscience has led them to differing convictions on the issue of v----ines (and perhaps medical preventative practices in general), and for them to still maintain unity with an attitude of charity and love. By extension, that means that their convictions can be neither arbitrary nor used as a club against others – true biblical convictions of conscience arise from the clear teachings within Scripture and are not to be used to enforce a law where there is no law. The issues of personal conscience are to be treated as such and truly respected – not simply tolerated with a cold judgmental glare, but warmly regarded as an issue of Christian charity.
This most likely brings a host of further application questions to mind, and I suspect that may explain the hesitancy of many to engage in this and similar topics – it is difficult and requires work. However, I would maintain that Christian conscience is a thoroughly biblical category, and that we would do well to exercise charity and love in matters of conscience. This does not solve our every question, but hopefully it helps to give some definition to an important biblical category.
SDG,
Josh Howard
Josh Howard serves as the Elder/Pastor at Grace Community Church in Battle Creek, MI, co-hosts the Good Doctrine Podcast, and is an alumni of Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (PhD, ThM).