Liberty of Conscience
Living according to conscience, then, is not a matter of “being faithful to my best self” or “following conscience per se.” It is a matter of conscience’s being informed, shaped, and trained by God’s Word and becoming increasingly sensitive to its assessments. To say that “God alone is Lord of the conscience” is to affirm that God’s Word is paramount in shaping this dimension of our self-consciousness. My Christian responsibility, therefore, is to immerse myself in the doctrines, patterns, and precepts of the Word of God.
God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to his Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship. 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. —Westminster Confession of Faith 20.2
This is no ivory-tower statement. Many of the delegates to the Westminster Assembly were working pastors and all too familiar with “the real world.” In fact, as they were writing in the 1640s, the real world was caught up in a terrible civil war, behind which lay the very issues that chapter 20 of the confession was written to address: liberty of conscience. A glance at my “seventeenth century” bookshelves reveals such learned works as A.S.P. Woodhouse, Puritanism and Liberty; William Haller, Liberty and Reformation in the Puritan Revolution; and Christopher Hill, Liberty against the Law. The titles say it all. Like the issue of law and love, the topic of Christian liberty, its nature and its implications, its extent and its limitations, is perennially significant. In seventeenth-century England, it was critical.
The Westminster divines faced both legalism and antinomianism, a false binding of the conscience on the one hand and libertinism on the other. In addition, this was an era of fear: fear of the return of Roman Catholicism and an opposite fear (one that at times seemed equal), the fear of anarchy represented by such quaintly named groups as Quakers, Levellers, Diggers, Mechanic Preachers, and Muggletonians. How freedom and responsibility are balanced in the Christian life was a matter of major concern. Hence, here in chapter 20, section 2, the exposition of Christian liberty in general (section 1) becomes narrowly focused on the issue of liberty of conscience in particular. During the first two years or so of the assembly’s work, the divines labored long and often to compose for their own time a chapter of biblical balance. For that reason, they produced a statement of lasting value. In these brief reflections on their teaching, it may be helpful for us to consider (1) its biblical foundations, (2) its historical relevance, and (3) some aspects of its practical application.
Biblical Foundations
What do we mean when we say, “God alone is Lord of the conscience”? What is “conscience,” and in what sense is God “Lord” of it?
The word conscience (Greek syneidsis) appears around thirty times in the New Testament, with the Apostle Paul using it twice as often as all the other authors combined. In his world, the conscience was seen as a function of human nature in which the self becomes aware of a moral assessment being made on its behavior based on some internally operative standard of judgment. The conscience is thus experienced as an approving or condemning voice that functions both to assess past and to guide present and future behavior.
Paul’s use of conscience, however, needs to be set within a biblical framework. Man (male and female) was created as the image of God in righteousness and holiness (Gen. 1:26; Eph. 4:24). Adam and Eve’s consciences were informed by and aligned with the revealed will of God and functioned to assess and to guide their behavior (Gen. 2:15–17). The result? In their original created condition, to borrow Paul’s expression (Rom. 2:15), their consciences bore witness to their integrity. They experienced an appropriate conscience approval, the evidence of which lay in that “the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed” (Gen. 2:25). God’s will for them and their faithfulness to it aligned. They enjoyed a “good conscience” and the experience of unclouded friendship. But that did not last long. Soon, in the aftermath of their disobedience to God’s Word (3:1–6), their Word-informed consciences were accusing and condemning them.
Genesis 3:7–8 opens the next stage in the human drama: “Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked.” Thus act 2 began: “And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths . . . , and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord.” They tried unsuccessfully to hide their sense of shame from each other (their sense of guilt emerges in the blame game in which they engage in 3:11–13). Nor could they hide from God. Their consciences had declared them to be guilty even before He asked them where they were (vv. 9–11).
Adam and Eve refused to allow “God alone” to be “Lord of the conscience.” In this context, it is easy to sense that the confession’s words sound like an eerie echo of the history of Eden. Adam and Eve were truly free when they lived according to God’s Word. They were in fact “free from the doctrines and commandments . . . which are, in anything, contrary to his Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship.” Their tragic mistake was “to believe such doctrines . . . [and] obey such commands. . . .” But they foolishly listened to the serpent and exercised “implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience.” That process was calculated “to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also” (WCF 20.2).
From where we stand at the other end of the Bible story, we see that the conscience is now no longer perfectly aligned with God’s Word. It is instead an aspect of people whose minds do not and whose wills cannot submit to God’s law (Rom. 8:7). Our regeneration needs to be accompanied by the recalibration of our consciences according to the Word of God. And if that process is to progress, we need to be on our guard against the same pattern of entrapment to which our first parents succumbed in Eden.
-
Context Matters: God’s Mercies Are New Every Morning
We should remember the steadfast love of the Lord every day, but we need reminders most when we feel it least. When we’re tempted to lose heart, when our souls are cast down, we need to remember what God is really like. Join the author of Lamentations. Recall the mercies of God throughout history and in your own life.
Perhaps you’ve heard that God’s mercies are new every morning. You’ve been told that his steadfast love never ceases, and you’ve sung “Great is Your Faithfulness.”
Perhaps your reminder about God’s mercies was splashed on an inspirational calendar above the perfect dew-brushed meadow. Or maybe you heard a perky Christian radio disc jockey quote this enthusiastically in an effort to motivate listeners to get out of bed.
I’ve heard this sentiment about God’s mercies on retreats, during good times, when the group I’m part of wants to extend its current momentum. We’re experiencing God’s blessings—both in ministry and life—and from this verse we’re told we should have confidence these blessings will continue. But does this use Lam 3:22–23 in the correct context?
When we learn to read the Bible as an actual book and not as a professionally-bound collection of pull-quotes, we’ll find that some of our favorite passages take on deeper and more sobering meanings.
The Book of Lamentations
The book of Lamentations is not cheerful. The author was not writing from a mountain top, riding the spiritual high of God’s favor.
In fact, picture the exact opposite of that setting. That’s the background for this book of laments.
(A quick note: Many people assume the prophet Jeremiah wrote Lamentations. There is wide disagreement about this, however, and I don’t think any interpretation changes if we drop this assumption.)
In 589 BC, Jerusalem was surrounded by the armies of Babylon and endured a long siege. The city fell in 587 BC and Babylon crashed in with fire and fury. The temple was desecrated and destroyed. The city was burned. Many Israelites died, and most of the rest were led away by the enemy forces. A scattered few people remained, and they were starving.
The author of Lamentations wrote in the midst of this terrible landscape. In five heart-wrenching prayers, he cried out to the Lord. He knew God’s hand was behind Babylon and that the Jewish people deserved this judgment for their idolatry. His laments were raw acknowledgments of their terrible, warranted state.
Read More -
Christian Reformed Church Stands Strong for Biblical Sexuality
The results were landslide decisions in favor of the historic church view of sexuality. Synod voted 131-45 to recommend the Human Sexuality Report to the churches. Synod then voted 123-53 to affirm that the traditional stance on sexuality is “confessional” and therefore binding on all officebearers.
The Christian Reformed Church in North America (CRC) held its denomination-wide synod meeting in June and the result was a strong stand for biblical marriage and sexuality.
Much was building up to this meeting. The long-awaited Human Sexuality Report (HSR) was on the agenda. This 175-page report presented the historical church’s position on sexuality and called for synod to officially recognize that position to already have “confessional status.” In other words, all pastors, elders and deacons would be expected to uphold and abide by the historical stance on sexuality.
Reinforcing the need for this clarity was the Neland Avenue CRC in Grand Rapids, Michigan that in 2020 ordained a deacon living in a same-sex marriage.
Less prominent was an overture asking for synod to declare heretical any denials of penal substitutionary atonement. This was in response to a minister who was ordained despite his objections to the atonement language most prominent in the CRC confessions.
Synod 2022 might go down as the most monumental meeting for the CRC of this generation.
During debate on the synod floor, one delegate said the CRC theology of sexuality “has caused there to be blood on our hands.” The chair ruled this comment out of order. The delegate was told he needed to apologize or lose speaking privileges. He refused to apologize and lost his right to speak.
As delegates were deliberating the report on sexuality, around 200 protesters filled the parking lot waving rainbow flags and singing hymns. The next day a smaller crowd gathered wearing black clothing. Spelling out “lament” on cardboard, they wore masks and remained silent.
The results were landslide decisions in favor of the historic church view of sexuality. Synod voted 131-45 to recommend the Human Sexuality Report to the churches. Synod then voted 123-53 to affirm that the traditional stance on sexuality is “confessional” and therefore binding on all officebearers. An instruction to Neland Avenue to “immediately rescind its decision to ordain a deacon in a same-sex marriage” passed 134 to 44. The same number of votes approved the formation of an in loco committee for Neland Avenue to “oversee its compliance” to synod rulings. The in loco committee was also tasked to “admonish” Classis Grand Rapids East (the regional body of congregations where Neland Avenue is a member) for their failure to hold Neland Avenue accountable to CRC positions.
During the debates on sexuality and Neland Avenue, delegates who spoke in favor of the HSR and biblical marriage were noticeably younger, from the generations rising at a time when Christian faith increasingly means standing out from the greater society. Orthodox voices were also more diverse. The CRC’s Korean Council and the Hispanic Consejo Latino both released statements ahead of synod strongly supporting the orthodox Human Sexuality Report.
On atonement, synod passed statements by overwhelming voice votes saying “to in any way deny that Jesus Christ’s life, death, and resurrection provide a substitutionary work of bearing God’s wrath on our behalf because of the just punishment we deserve for our sin” is a “serious deviation from the teachings of the confessions” of the CRC.
Read MoreRelated Posts:
-
Book Review: Butterfield and Five Lies of Our Age
There’s no question that the West is becoming increasingly antagonistic towards Christianity. One reason for this is that the ever-expanding LGBT agenda is deeply incompatible with biblical Christianity. In our age of ‘self,’ choice and rights are paramount, and no one has the right to tell someone else what to do (unless, of course, you are correcting a Christian).
Five Lies of Our Anti-Christian Age speaks into our context, unpacking how we arrived at our current state. Butterfield gives a biblical diagnosis and prognosis of our predicament, outlining the key issues at stake. For this reason, it is a critical book for our day and age.
The author, Rosaria Butterfield, was formerly engaged in a homosexual relationship and worked as a radical feminist academic at Syracuse University in New York. After a radical encounter with Jesus Christ, her life was irrevocably changed. She now serves the Lord as a writer, speaker, and homemaker, sharing the good news of Jesus and its transformative power.
As the title suggests, the book provides biblical truths in response to five lies prevalent today:Lie #1: Homosexuality is Normal.
Lie #2: Being a Spiritual Person is Kinder than being a Biblical Christian.
Lie #3: Feminism is Good for the World and Church.
Lie #4: Transgenderism is Normal.
Lie #5: Modesty is an Outdated Burden that Serves Male Dominance and Holds Women Back.You ought to buy the book to receive all it has to offer, but here are some key points I took away:
1. The Lie of Gay Christianity
In Five Lies of Our Anti-Christian Age, Butterfield cautions Christians against jumping on the ‘Gay Christianity’ bandwagon. This movement describes homosexuality as an identity rather than a behaviour, refuses to identify homosexual lust as sinful (cf. Matthew 5:27), and embraces LGBT language in Christian activities (i.e., diversity, inclusion, hate speech, etc.).
Butterfield argues that ‘Homosexual orientation is a man-made theory about anthropology [which] comes from atheistic worldviews that coalesced in the nineteenth century in Europe.’ (p. 65) The Freudian idea of ‘sexual orientation’ is an anti-biblical concept which must therefore be rejected by the church.
She reflects on her own deception before becoming a Christian:
“Instead of lesbianism being who I was, I now understood it as both a lack of righteousness and a wilful transgressive action. I was no victim. I was no “sexual minority” needing a voice in the church. I needed to grow in sanctification—just like everyone else in the church.” (p. 49)
She continues:
“I learned that we repent of sin by hating it, killing it, turning from it. But we also “add” the virtue of God’s word. It is light that changes darkness. The Bible calls us to mortify (kill) and vivify (enliven). I realized that Christians are given a new nature, yet we have sin patterns that we need to kill, to be sure.” (p. 49)
‘Gay Christianity’ is not only anti-Christian, but it denies salvation to those in the snares of sexual sin. It negates the possibility of freedom from disordered sexual desires and does not appreciate the power of the cross to free captives from their sin. On the contrary, the gospel offers a better narrative.
First, those who have engaged in homosexuality — in thought or deed — need not view themselves as permanently enslaved to their desires. Instead, God calls them, as he does all people, to repent and believe in the gospel, that they may have everlasting life (cf. John 3:16).
Second, it provides freedom and hope to those feeling shackled by their sins. By accepting Christ, we can overcome the deeds of the flesh through the Holy Spirit, including sexual sins. God no longer defines us by our transgressions, as we have been united with Christ. For believers, how beautiful it is to be recognized as a ‘new creation’ rather than being labelled by our sins?
2. Spiritual or Biblical?
In recent times, liberal Christianity has reared its ugly head again. In the name of ‘tolerance,’ liberal Christianity despises exclusive truth claims as bigoted and inhospitable. As J. Gresham Machen, author of Christianity and Liberalism wrote in 1923:
“The movement designated as “liberalism” is regarded as “liberal” only by its friends; to its opponents it seems to involve a narrow ignoring of many relevant facts.”[1]
Similar to the climate of the early 1900s, there is now a push in the West to distinguish ‘Biblical Christianity’ from ‘Spiritual Christianity.’ In other words, your relationship with Jesus is more important than your doctrine.
Butterfield challenges the false dichotomy between spiritual and biblical, suggesting that true spiritual only flows from biblical Christianity. Unless spirituality is tethered to the truths of Scripture, it is nothing more than subjectivism.
Butterfield echoes the words of Peter Jones, who suggests, ‘Spirituality has become a do-it-yourself life hobby that blends ancient Eastern practices with modern consumer sensibilities.’[2]
She explains why only biblical Christianity provides the strength and power we need to resist worldly lies:
“What makes one child’s faith stand against the world and another fall in conformity to it? The word of God is our answer. And the word of God is an answer of hope. Jesus is our hope, and he is not done with any of us.” (p. 124)
Biblical faith is grounded in the promises of God as revealed in His Word. Unlike the chaff of ‘spiritual Christianity,’ biblical Christianity is anchored in real promises of hope, joy, and peace for those who repent and believe.
Read More
Related Posts:
