Heads up: This post is slightly longer and more technical than other posts. If that’s not what you come to Critical Grace Theory for, you may want to pass on this one and wait for the Thursday post.
Christians are not utilitarians—does that mean they shouldn’t take consequences into account in their ethical decision-making? If John finds himself in a situation where his conscience conflicts with a biblical imperative, should he seek to keep his conscience clear or violate it? If Tina learns that coffee is often farmed by human slaves in poor countries, should she stop enjoying her morning cup of joe for fear that she is contributing to wickedness? Should Sam do the right thing if he understands himself to be doing it for the wrong reasons? Does Tori have an obligation to look into whether her pattern of giving homeless people cash hurts rather than helps?
Even on the most reductionist systems (e.g. utilitarianism) the landscape of ethical decision-making is fraught with difficulty. For many Christians, navigating ethical terrain in the run of real life appears even more difficult owing to a host of biblical concepts that clearly govern righteous action: cut and dry obedience to the Bible, maintaining a clear conscience, doing good (and thus understanding consequences), having the right motivations, and so on. What’s more is that sometimes these seem at odds. What is a Christian to do?
What I’d like to do in this post is lay out my long-considered understanding of the hierarchical framework of Christian, ethical decision-making. As in any hierarchy, elements higher up in the hierarchy “trump” elements lower in the hierarchy. This is not to be confused with saying that the Bible offers internally conflicting accounts for righteous decision-making. Instead, it is an acknowledgment that the Bible itself lays out such a hierarchy that is perfectly consistent with itself, so understood.
From our perspective, apparent conflicts only emerge when we get Scripture’s hierarchy wrong or take one element in the hierarchy and operate as though it is the only relevant factor in Christian decision-making. Clarity here will not give us answers to every circumstantial question; it will, however, give us a helpful framework with which to deliberate wisely, which we should all desire as Christians. For ease of reading, I’ve broken the hierarcy down into bullet point format.
Christian Hierarchicalism
Biblical Moral Norms
The Scriptures are inspired, authoritative and inerrant divine communication. Thus, Scripture is the untrumpable trump and we should seek knowledge of its contents.
Further, as the product of a divine author capable of transferring meaning through language, the Scriptures are clear in how they lay out the gospel and the framework of moral norms they prescribe, that we might be furnished with everything we need for life and godliness and be equipped unto “every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16).
This clarity accounts for the expectation that its readers and hearers will obey and justifies rebuke for not doing so (e.g. Matt. 22:31). This is the doctrine of the clarity of Scripture—there is no corresponding doctrine of the clarity of intuitions or conscience.
We should obey Scripture even if we don’t want to and even if we have impure or wrong motives (Lk. 9:23; Eph. 4:22-24). This doesn’t mean that angry or despairing obedience isn’t sinful; it is (see below). It means that our internal motivational conflicts or conscience pangs don’t trump Scripture as our ethical lodestar.
A woman who stays married even when she doesn’t prefer to, or even if she only does so because she enjoys her husband’s money, is still doing something better than the woman who divorces her spouse because he is boring.
The man paying taxes to Caesar with disgust and confusion is doing something better than the man engaged in tax evasion.
We should obey Scripture even if our conscience tells us differently, because our conscience is not God and is not infallible (see below).
Exhortations to keep a clear conscience (e.g. Rom. 14:23) mean “clear” from the standpoint of perceived conflict with God’s moral norms, not “clear” from the standpoint of personal psychology. It isn’t possible to “violate your conscience” in a biblically meaningful way if the “violation” is simply doing what Scripture commands. In that case, the only thing that is being violated is a misconception or wayward desire.
Finally, those without Scripture still have an awareness of God’s moral law that their conscience uses to accuse and excuse them in their decision-making (Rom. 2:14–16). Thus, while God’s moral norms are most clearly and specifically laid down in Scripture, moral epistemology on the Christian worldview is not confined to biblicism.
Purity of Conscience
Conscience (Gr. syneidesis) in Scripture refers both to our capacity for moral decision-making and a self-awareness of right and wrong, including awareness if we are in the right or in the wrong (Rom. 2:15). Furthermore, maintaining and acting from a clear conscience is important (e.g. Acts 24:16; Rom. 14:23).
Having a “good” conscience (1 Tim. 1:5), therefore, is both a disposition toward living in alignment with our understanding of God’s moral norms and an understanding that we have actually done or are doing so.
Our consciences are not infallible owing both to sin that can damage and sear them (1 Tim. 4:2; Tit. 1:15) and to wrong beliefs that create moral pseudo-dilemmas in our minds (Rom. 14:14).
Our decisions flowing from conscience have an asymmetrical relationship with biblical authority: they can never trump what Scripture commands or prohibits, but our conscience can create in us obligations to refrain from doing what Scripture permits (Rom. 14:14, 23).
While our consciences often straightforwardly apply biblical norms, they also play a role in applying those norms in particular circumstances about which Scripture has not spoken explicitly. In such cases, we are to follow our consciences such that we are free from self-condemnation (Rom. 14:22).
In cases where we are unsure of what to do, conscience will often play a “defensive” role by clarifying at the very least what we should not do.
This is the role conscience played for many who did not vote at all the 2024 presidential election.
Conscience trumps motives, intentions, and consequences in the logical order of moral decision-making because purity of motives, intentions or understanding of consequences will almost always determine if we can do something with a clear conscience in the first place (e.g. Heb. 13:8).
Thus, motives, intentions, and consequences are explanatorily downstream from God’s revealed moral norms and maintaining a clear conscience because they “look up” to those things as their goals.
Ultimately, at this stage in the hierarchy, conscience says, “I understand what is right and wrong, good and evil—largely from Scripture—and have a desire to pursue the right and the good and avoid the wrong and the evil.”
Motives and Intentions
God cares deeply about the heart such that doing otherwise good things for the wrong reasons is still sinful (e.g. Matt. 23). Honoring God with our lips (a good thing) while our hearts are far from him (a bad thing) actually dishonors God (Matt. 15:8).
Thus, once we enter the circumstantial ground of seeking to honor God’s word through concrete action, we want to ensure that our love flows out of a pure heart, a good conscience, and a sincere faith (1 Tim. 1:5).
In most cases, this will boil down to our motives and intentions for taking a particular action. We can ask, “Why do I believe that this particular action is an expression of obedience to God’s moral norms?”
Progressing down through the hierarchy, we might envision someone who understands that 1) God’s authoritative word demands we care for the poor 2) desires to live out God’s word and therefore 3) gives $5 to the homeless man on the corner because they have a desire to help and provide for him and a belief that their $5 will help accomplish that aim.
Alternatively, we could consider the young boy who 1) intuitively knows that it is wrong to mistreat animals 2) has a desire to do what is right and good by them 3) rescues a fish from drowning by throwing it up onto the beach as an application of 1) and 2).
This step represents the essence of phrases like “it’s the heart that counts” and represents the meatiest practical element in Christian decision-making.
Consequences
Undoubtedly, consequences are the most challenging aspect of understanding an action’s moral worth on a Christian framework for at least two reasons.
First, from an epistemological standpoint, the consequences I might entertain for any given action do not fall cleanly into a single category of certainty (i.e. “certain,” “probable,” “possible,” “unlikely” etc.).
It is primarily for this reason that consequences, while important, fall to the bottom of the Christian decision-making hierarchy (not to be confused with what constitutes sin objectively or how bad it is). We simply have less control over, confidence in, and awareness of the consequences of our actions than we do the reasons and intentions for our actions.
Scripture seems to suggest that earnestly perceived, specific consequences—not remotely possible or certain, not general or ambiguous—is the category most relevant for our decision-making as far as consequences are concerned. While possibilities are enough to provide prudential reasons for acting (e.g. 2 Sam. 12:22; Prov. 22:3), as far as I am aware, there is not a single example in Scripture where the mere or hypothetical possibility of a negative consequence renders a particular action unwise or sinful.
It’s possible, for example, that the taxes Jesus said were to be paid to Caesar by Christians could be understood as funding the gladiatorial games, but that possibility and/or interpretation of paying taxes obviously did not and does not render paying them sinful (Matt. 22:15–22; Rom. 13:7).
It’s possible that someone with a weak conscience could have seen a Corinthian Christian buying meat in the market and be scandalized, but Paul says to eat whatever is purchased in the meat market with a clear conscience (1 Cor. 10:25). It’s only when someone sits down with another Christian making claims about the meat being sacrificed to idols that harming someone’s conscience becomes a specific, and confidently perceived consequence of action (10:28).
It’s possible that when I take my kids to school tomorrow, I could be distracted by new construction and kill another driver. It doesn’t follow from this possibile consequence that driving is wrong or unwise.
Second, it is impossible to know all the consequences of my actions living in a world where the flutter of a butterfly’s wing might cause or contribute to a tsunami. And yet, objective consequences—not just known, suspected or intended ones—can sometimes affect the moral worth of my actions.
For example, God sent plagues on Pharaoh’s household because of his relations with Abraham’s wife despite being unaware that she was his wife (Gen. 12:17–20). Accidentally hitting a pregnant woman was a serious offense according to the Mosaic law, and if she miscarried as a consequence of being accidentally hit, the consequences were even more serious (Ex. 21:22–25). Hebrews reminds us that the high priest atoned for the unintentional sins of the people (Heb. 9:7; cf. Num. 15:21, “If one person sins unintentionally…”).
We could also consider two drunk drivers heading home who both run up on sidewalks. One sidewalk has a pedestrian on it who is struck and killed, while the other driver’s sidewalk has no one on it, and he swerves back into the road and continues home. Despite the fact that both drivers “did” the same thing, the consequences were different, and thus, the moral status of their actions. Consequences matter.
The relationship of objective consequences to the moral worth of actions suggests that Christians have a responsibility to gradually increase their knowledge of the actual and likely consequences of their actions as they mature in wisdom, just like the young boy saving the fish from drowning must inevitably do. Indeed, while the heart is the focal point, it is not the only thing that counts—we have an obligation to move past sin and foolishness done in ignorance and with good intentions.
The woman giving money to homeless people should, out of an abiding and growing concern to help the needy, probably come to realize that throwing cash at poverty often hurts more than it helps. After realizing this very likely (though not certain) consequence, she should take different steps to care for the poor in order to maintain a good conscience.
Someone enjoying coffee frequently who becomes aware that coffee is often harvested by those in slavery should, at that point, at least do a Google search about the source of their coffee and the integrity of the supply chain.
Someone critiquing capitalism because it drives transnational migration that can have negative effects on sending countries and increase their need to borrow, on the other hand, is not going to have a very compelling argument. The consequences—objective and likely—are not straightforward and the link between cause and effect is vague and unspecific.
How one grows in their understanding of consequences will in turn reflect how they think about motivations and keeping a clear conscience as they seek to love well and walk in holiness. Furthermore, the question, “What level of confidence is required to consider a potential consequence ‘likely’ as opposed to merely ‘possible’?” and related questions will themselves (likely) be a matter of conscience.
Christian Hierarchicalism
Biblical moral norms—understanding special and natural revelation
A good conscience in applying and desiring to live out those norms
Loving and holy intentions driving our particular, concrete efforts at obedience
Allowing our understanding of likely, specific consequences to shape our concrete actions with wisdom
A responsibility to gradually grow in knowledge of actual and likely consequences of our actions that then filters back up through the framework
Substack ran out of bullet-types. Sorry.
As I mentioned at the beginning, this framework will not give us specific direction in every circumstance. But it does provide a nuanced and helpful progression for thinking about—and growing in—our ethical decision-making, one I'll likely be returning to in subsequent posts.
Whew. Heavy lifting on a Monday morning, but very helpful. I will likely put the bullet points on my fridge as a reminder of this process. Ideally the more I do it, the more natural it becomes.