Complexity
Before we come to a formal definition perhaps we should warn against the temptation of thinking about the conscience simplistically. Whatever it is, the conscience is something complex. Recognising this, some of the Puritans allowed their imaginations free rein in order to describe the worlcings of conscience. William Perkins speaks of conscience being assisted by mind, the storehouse and keeper of rules and principles and by memory, the recaller of omissions and commissions.
In THE HOLY WAR Bunyan is even more elaborate with Mr Conscience the Towncrier who goes mad. Richard Sibbes says, 'God hath set and planted in man this court of conscience, and it is God's hall, as it were, where he keeps his first judgement .... his assizes. And conscience doth all the parts. It registereth, it witnesseth, it judgeth, it executes, it doth all. ' (Quoted by Packer, AMONG GOD'S GIANTS, Kingsway, Eastbourne, 1991, pp 143, 145). Such pictures are helpful as long as we keep in mind the complex mysteries involved. The worlcings of conscience include the process of perceiving what is required, assessing this and then deciding how to proceed or what judgement to give on the subject. This culminates in an over-riding impression of 'ought' or 'ought not'. Although this may happen very quickly a host of mental perceptions and emotions are involved. For instance there is the comprehension of right and wrong; using the memory, mind and will; a resulting complacency, delight or pride, on the one hand;or disquiet, shame and pain on the other as reward or punishment is contemplated.
The breadth of mental and emotional intetplay involved can be gauged from the variety of legitimate illustrations employed by different writers in their attempts to bring out the manifold character of conscience. These include spy, watchdog, monitor, bloodhound, window, skylight, mirror, pope, lash, sword, barometer, sundial, alarm clock, plumbline, sense of taste etc! These various illustrations highlight the fact that conscience cannot be thought of as a simple mechanism or reflex.
Definition
Now we come to a definition. It is clear that when the Bible speaks about the conscience it is really speaking about the heart or soul or spirit itself. More definitely, it is referring to a particular aspect of the soul or, better, the soul's worlcings. We should not think of the conscience as a department of man's personality or a faculty of his soul. It is useful to speak of it in these terms for the purposes of study but it is important to realise that the conscience is, in fact, simply one aspect of man's personality, one function of his soul, namely the moral worlcing or reasoning. Hence the complexity we have spoken of. Hence the way in which the Bible is willing to talk about the heart rather than using the more specific term, the conscience. The 'joint knowledge' is not necessarily something shared with God himself. Rather it is a knowledge we share with ourselves. Put simply, the conscience is man's power of self-reflection and of self-criticism. It is the moral reason. American Milton Rudnick helpfully defines it as, 'the self in the process of ethical deliberation and evaluation ... '. He says, 'It is not someone or something else worlcing in or u~ man, but the moral self at worlc, involving all of a man's rational and emotional faculties.' (Milton Rudnick, CHRISTIAN ETHICS FOR TODAY, Baker, Gtand Rapids, 1979, pp 125,126). In Sibbes' words, 'The soul reflecting upon itself.' We can agree, too, with Kenneth Kirlc who, earlier this century, wrote, 'The exigencies of language force us often enough to speak of conscience as a distinct entity; but we must continually remind ourselves that it is no such thing ... conscience is myself so far as I am a moral man. ' (8 Kenneth Kirk CONSCIENCE AND ITS PROBLEMS, Longmans, London, p 57).
Conscience is remarlcable. It is one of the things that distinguishes us from the animals. In his mid-twentieth century classic on the subject Norwegian Ole Hallesby writes, 'It is through the conscience that man acquires a consciousness of his humanity and is thus distinguished from the brute ... This ... is very remarlcable. A sort of doubling of our personality takes place. The 'I' takes a position, so to speak, outside of itself. .. it then pronounces judgment upon itself ... Then follows the most remarlcable result of all. The judgment which the 'I' pronounces upon the 'I' is entirely objective and unbiased ... at the judgment bar of conscience it is the accused person himself who passes judgment. ' (9 0 Hallesby, CONSCIENCE, (tmns. C J Carlsen), NF, London, 1950, p 11). As remarkable as the conscience is we must not place it above other abilities, however. As R L Dabney points out in his PRACTICAL PHILOSOPHY conscience is not a separate faculty. Why should we think of our ability to judge ourselves as somehow essentially different from our ability to judge others? It is only the filet that we ourselves are involved that makes us feel the process is so much more rematkable. (R L Dabney, THE PRACTICAL PHILOSOPHY, 1897, Sprinkle Reprint 1984, pp 282, 283).
Romans 2:14,15
The nearest the New Testament comes to anything like a definition of conscience is in Romans 2:14,15. A number of things emerge from these verses.
Firstly, everyone has a conscience, even pagans. The conscience belongs to man as man. These verses also help us to distinguish and identify the elements involved in making a moral decision. Although the word conscience is often used to refer to the whole process 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. The Moral Record.
2. The conscience itself which makes its judgments on the basis of the preceding element. The Conscience Proper.
3. A man's thoughts, his opinions. These come as he makes a decision on the basis of the mediation of his conscience. The Mind or Opinion.
When we use the word conscience, therefore, we should really restrict it to this second aspect of moral decision making, although it is easy to see why the word is also used for the whole process. The Dutchman, Willem A Brakel wrote of the three elements as knowledge (ie of God's will and law), witness (ie of conformity or lack of it) and acknowledgement (ie of deserving punishment or reward). (W A'Brakel, THE CHRISTIAN'S REASONABLE SERVICE, SDG, p 317). This corresponds to the Puritan idea, gleaned from Aquinas and the Schoolmen, of the conscience worlcing syllogistically. A syllogism is an inference from two premises, one major and one minor. The Puritans spoke of syllogisms of duty and syllogisms concerning our state before God. Jim Packer gives an example of the former in an essay on the Puritan Conscience, 'God forbids me to steal (major premise) To take this money would be stealing (minor premise) Therefore I must not take this money (conclusion)' He also quotes two from Ames concerning our state before God, 'He that lives in sinne, shall dye: I live in sinne, therefore I shall dye.' 'Whosoever believes in Christ, shall not dye but live. I believe in Christ; therefore I shall not yie but live.' (Packer, p 143)
The major premise corresponds to the moral record (referred to as sunteresis or 'nature'), the minor one to the conscience proper (suneidesis). The conclusion is the work of the mind, defending or accusing. Some would suppose that the conscience only acts in a negative, condemning way. One twentieth century theologian spoke of it as 'alien, dark, hostile and sinister'. This may have been the Greek view but Paul points out that there are times when even the Gentile conscience can provoke thoughts which excuse as well as accuse. A person can have either a 'bad conscience' or a 'good conscience'. (Strictly speaking, of course, it is not the conscience that is good or bad, any more than a barometer is bad if it correctly predicts stormy weather.)
Certainly a Christian can have a good conscience. This is clear from 2 Corinthians 1:12 and 1 Timothy 1:19, for instance. Romans 2:14,15 plainly teaches the moral responsibility of all men. As Waiter Chantry has observed, 'Conscience alone has witnessed sufficiently to the moral law, so that everyone is without excuse.'
Past, Present and Future
It would seem that the judgements of conscience can concern not only past and present but also the future (some would draw this conclusion from Romans 2:14,15 itself). In this latter role conscience acts more like a guide than a judge. Packer speaks of conscience as 'a mentor,prohibiting evil (Acts 24:16, Romans 13:5)' (future), 'a witness declaring facts (Romans 2:15, cf John 3:20f (present) and 'ajudgeassessing desert (Romans 2:15; 9:1; 2 Corinthians 1:12)' (past). Hallesby also observes that conscience is generally at its weakest during sin (present) (Contrast this with, 'Conscience is a cowanl, and those whose faults it has not strength to prevent it seldom has justice enough to accuse.' (Oliver Goldsmith, THE VICAR OF WAKEFIELD, 1766) but at its strongest after the event (past). Conclusion The conscience is not the result of evolution. It is not simply the interiorisation of cultural norms or of social mores. The conscience undoubtedly bears witness to the culture and the morality around about it but this in no way explains its origin or how it functions. Nor is conscience 'the voice of God' except as far as it is part of his general revelation to each individual of the existence of right and wrong and the need for judgement. It is rather what Opperwall labels, 'the internalised voice of those whose judgment of a person counts with him. It is the inner voice that testifies for the moral authorities that we recognise'. (R Opperwall, article on conscience in THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPEDIA, ed G Bromiley, Eenlmans, Grand Rapids, 1975, p 762). Keil says it is, 'not the echo of an immediate divine self-evidence at every moment, but the knowledge of a divine law which every man ... bears in his heart .... an active consciousness of a divine-law established in man's heart ... '. (Keil, pp 162, 165). Thus it is a most important voice, one you dare not ignore. Fallen conscience's judgements are inevitably inadequate, nevertheless they always bear some relation to the coming judgement. The voice is not as loud or as clear as before the Fall but it is still there anticipating, in Bishop Butler's words 'a higher and more effectual sentence which shall hereafter second and affirm its own'. (Bishop Butler, quoted by REO White, p 232). God has given every man a soul. The word conscience refers to that aspect of the soul concerned with morality. The conscience bears witness to the moral record in a person. On the basis of its witness decisions are made about right and wrong. We do not always like the witness that our conscience bears. Sometimes we do not even agree with it. We must all realise, however, 40 that the voice of conscience ought not to be ignored. John MacArthur (John MacArthur Jr, THE VANISHING CONSCIENCE, 1994, p 61) suggests that the conscience may be the most under-appreciated and least understood attribute of humanity. He may well be right. Modern psychology, he goes on to suggest, is more concerned to silence it than to understand it. Let those who seek to make Christ the Lorl of their conscience not do the same.
Rev Gary Brady BA is pastor of Childs Hill Baptist Church, London
'Conscience ... is as essential a part of man's motal nature as feeling is of his physical constitution. It is also like the other noble powers of his mind, indestructible. Neither life nor death, nor time nor eternity, nor the happiness of heaven, nor the misery of hell, will be able to extinguish this spade of momllife within the human breast.'
John King,
