Sermon Tone Analysis

Romans 13:5

Christian Conscience and the State

 

Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience.[1]

How many sermons have you ever heard concerning the conscience?

I confess that I have been in church ministries for over thirty years, and until this day I have never preached a sermon dealing with conscience.

Just as telling is the fact that I cannot recall ever hearing a single message dealing with the subject of conscience.

Comparatively few systematic theologies even make mention of conscience.

Listen carefully, therefore, for the message which you are about to hear may be the only message on this subject you will ever receive.

In our studies through this portion of the Apostle’s contribution to the Word of God, we have discovered that Paul is teaching about the proper function of government.

Additionally, he has masterfully presented the requirement for Christians to be exemplary in their submission before the legitimate authority of government.

As we have seen throughout this series of studies, whenever we speak of submission and authority we enter the realm of controversy.

Accordingly, I am compelled to issue a caution to those who either listen to this message or read it.

I caution against drawing unwarranted conclusions concerning our role as Christians in the modern state on the basis of this message alone.

You must be cautious before making any statement concerning the legitimate authority of government based upon this sole message.

The purpose of this message is neither to explore the authority of government nor to explore the limits of obedience.

These issues have been explored previously.

We previously explored the parameters of governmental authority and the requirement for Christian submission.

I encourage you to review the previous three messages in this particular series before you draw any conclusions concerning a biblical view of the Christian in the modern state.

In the text, we have received two powerful reasons for this required submission.

First, government receives authority from God.  Thus, if we resist the authority of the state, we are resisting the authority of God, and God will judge us.

Second, the state itself will judge us if we resist its authority.

The state will insist upon obedience and will punish us if we do not submit to its authority.

Together, these are two good reasons for Christian submission to the authority of the state.

At this point, we might think that Paul is prepared to move on.

However, just as we think he is prepared to wrap up his argument, he says, almost as an afterthought, “Oh, yes, and also because of conscience.”

No longer is Paul’s argument merely pragmatic, but now it touches the very heart of our lives as children of the True and Living God.

To this point, it is as if Paul had said, “You should obey the state because you will get in trouble if you don’t.”

Now, however, he says, “You should obey the state because it is the right thing to do, and you know you should do what is right.”

James Boice observes, “Instead of treating us as we might treat an animal, training it to respond mechanically by rewarding desired behaviour and punishing undesirable behaviour, Paul treats people as responsible moral agents—that is, as human beings made in God’s image—by appealing to our consciences.”[2]

A Definition of Conscience — We know that the concept of the conscience was more important to Paul than to all other Bible writers.

I say this because the word *conscience* occurs twenty-nine times in the *English Standard Version of the Bible*, only one of which occurrences is in the Old Testament.

There, it translates the Hebrew word which was usually translated heart.

The word *conscience* occurs in the New Testament twenty-eight times.

Peter uses the word twice and the author of Hebrews uses the word four times.

However, the Apostle Paul uses the word no less than twenty-two times (including two times in statements recorded in the Book of Acts).

The English word conscience is from the Latin *conscientia*, a compound of *con* (“together” or “with”) and *scio* (“to know”).

This in turn is a translation of the Greek συνείδησις, which means literally “knowledge with.”[3]

This is fine, but what is the conscience?

The nominal meaning of the concept of *conscience* is “an inner awareness, a knowledge within one’s self.”[4]

Roger Congdon, in a thorough study of the concept of *conscience*, concludes that “conscience is our ‘knowing with’ God’s law by which we realise whether or not we are conforming to His standard.”[5]

Conscience appears to be inherited, for though the wicked may act as though they are without conscience, evidence seems to point to the conclusion that conscience is a part of all mankind.

Congdon argues persuasively, “In the natural man, of a surety, it is not dominant, for the sin nature prevails and perverts it.

Education may colour it; exercise will strengthen it.

To disobey its voice dulls the power it has, and to ignore it constantly will result in a callused conscience.

But the voice is still there and still capable of speaking.

It seems probable that if a man were absolutely destitute of conscience he could not be saved, because it would be impossible for him to realise his need of a Saviour otherwise.

As long as the gospel is addressed to all men, then, and all are saveable, it would appear a logical conclusion to say that all have workable consciences.”[6]

If we will understand what *conscience* is, we must understand Paul’s use of the word.

Secular writers usually employ the concept of *conscience* in a negative manner.

One could easily argue that this is the proper use of the concept since we are sinful creatures.

Each of us is compelled to confess that we are guilty of many offences against Holy God, and consequently, our consciences usually condemn us.

I would suppose it accurate to say that a guilty conscience is one of the greatest struggles facing any of us as Christians.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, creator of Sherlock Holmes, was also a creative practical joker.

The story is told of one horrendously clever practical joke that he once played.

He wrote a short, unsigned telegram, all in fun, to twelve of the best known men in England.

The anonymous message was the same—six scary words.

“All is discovered.

Flee at once.”

Within 24 hours, not one of those men could be found.

Paul knew that an individual’s conscience can be weak [*1 Corinthians 8:7-12*].

Perhaps the best definition of a weak conscience is one which is over scrupulous or over sensitive.

“Someone who has been reared by legalistic parents who used guilt and shame to manipulate their children often has a conscience that is overly sensitive.

Some have consciences so twisted and confused, they need extensive help before they can start thinking correctly.

Sometimes it takes a good Christian therapist—someone who can help an individual with a shame-based conscience to understand how things got all fouled up.

Sometimes a long-term friendship helps give grace to a conscience that has known only legalism.

A conscience that is legalistic is not a good guide.”[7]

The Apostle knew that a weak conscience may easily degenerate into one that is /defiled/ [*1 Corinthians 8:7*].

“If we persist in some action against which conscience has witnessed, we thereby defile it and thus prevent its faithful functioning.

When a watch stops, it is not the fault of the watch but of the dust which has clogged its delicate mechanism.

So with conscience, especially in the realm of purity.”[8]

According to *Titus 1:16*, morally defiled unbelievers have minds and consciences that are defiled.

In other words, they are so involved in sin that their consciences are unreliable.

“The more one sins, the more he becomes comfortable in his sins.

By lowering his standards, he is less sensitive to and feels less remorse about previously accepted standards.

As a poor judge, his conscience renders unreliable judgements and does not adequately prompt him toward morally correct actions.

Such an individual possesses an evil conscience [*Hebrews 10:22*], in need of the spiritual cleansing of regeneration.”[9]

Consequently, a conscience can be evil [*Hebrews 10:22*].

It is possible for an individual to defy the voice of his conscience habitually until it is reduced to insensitivity.

Paul describes this condition as seared—it is made insensitive like the skin of an animal cauterised by a branding iron [*1 Timothy 4:2*].

Paul also knew that one’s conscience can condemn.

In *Acts 24:16*, he states that he takes pains /to have a clear conscience toward both God and man/.

The Apostle did not wish to be condemned by his conscience, so he sought a clear conscience—one which was void of offence toward God and man.

More generally, Paul speaks of possessing a good conscience [*1 Timothy 1:5, 19*].

A good conscience permits the believer to love the Lord and others [*1 Timothy 1:5*], and to be a strong soldier for the cause of Christ [*1 Timothy 1:19*].

Peter will add that a good conscience brings shame to those who accuse the one with a good conscience.

Paul also teaches concerning the possession of a clear conscience [*1 Timothy 3:9*; *2 Timothy 1:3*].

Deacons are to have a clear [pure] conscience [*1 Timothy 3:9*].

Likewise, Paul served God with a clear [pure] conscience [*2 Timothy 1:3*].

Standing before the Sanhedrin, the great man could declare, Brothers, I have lived my life before God in all good conscience up to this day [*Acts 23:1*].

To the Corinthians, the Apostle wrote, our boast is this: the testimony of our conscience that we behaved in the world with simplicity and godly sincerity, not by earthly wisdom but by the grace of God, and supremely so toward you [*2 Corinthians 1:12*].

At a later point in that same letter, he wrote, we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways.

We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God’s word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God [*2 Corinthians 4:2*].

There is an obvious difference in Paul’s use of conscience and that of secular writers.

Secular writers speak of conscience as that facility which condemns us.

Paul writes of conscience as that faculty which commends us.

The difference is that “God has quickened the Christian’s moral nature so that he or she not only knows what is right as opposed to what is wrong, but also has been given a true desire and ability to do what conscience demands.”[10]

Christian Conscience and Our Relationship to the State — The Czech sociologist Vaclav Belohradsky said during one interview, “European tradition means not ever being able to live above and beyond one’s conscience by reducing it to an anonymous apparatus like the law or the state.

This ‘fixed point’ of the conscience is a legacy of the Greek, Christian, and bourgeois tradition.

The irreducibility of the conscience to institutions is threatened in the era of mass media, totalitarian states, and the generalised computerisation of society.

Indeed, it is very easy for us to succeed in imagining institutions organised so perfectly as to impose any action of theirs as legitimate.