A Question of Conscience

Is 'self-loathing' dealt with in the Bible?

We hear quite a lot these days about people who are troubled by 'self-loathing', or 'self-hatred'. It is observed that some have a particularly low opinion of themselves. They question whether anyone really likes them, or think that if their friends 'really knew' what they were like, they would not remain friends. In Christian circles, it is advocated that this is addressed by the command to 'love your neighbour as yourself'. The suggestion is that in order to love others as we should, we first have to learn to 'love ourselves'. It is added that Jesus Himself emphasises this. For when He is asked which is the greatest commandment, He replies:

"The most important one is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’There is no commandment greater than these.” (Mark 12 vs 29 - 31)

This, it is said, is how we deal with self-loathing. The self-loather is not loving himself as he should.

The trouble with this is that it stretches the plain reading of the command out of proportion. It is almost beyond question that the focus here is not on the love of self at all. The point is to live so that the needs of others are equally ranked with our own, and this was to be fundamental to the Jew, living with fellow-Jew, in Israel. It is assumed that each person, by nature, looks after himself.

Of note in our 'sophisticated'. modern society is the way 'psycho-speak' has become a part of common language. Concepts which were once reserved for those specialising in such areas are now bandied around ad lib. To further 'empower' our medical self-awareness, the world-wide web allows endless exploration of symptoms large and small, and although this can be of great benefit in providing useful information, it can also lead to partial knowledge, which distorts the picture. There evolves an 'urban understanding' of who and what we are, which is caught rather than taught, swallowed wholesale, and then determines how we live. The Christian learns to examine and challenge such things, bringing them into the spotlight of God's revealed word, the Bible. So my question is, if self-loathing is anything like a common metal ailment in the human condition, how is it approached Biblically?

A Rose, by Any Other Name ...

The first challenge here is to identify what we are really talking about. And I think what has happened is that we have seen a massive re-labelling of quite common conditions with this infiltrated, psycho-speak terminology. That, stripped down, what we term 'self-loathing' is, in fact, guilt. Now that, the Bible does speak of. Let me expand.

The 'self-loather' finds a haunting, nagging, condemning voice within, which constantly reminds him/her of past faults and failures and present lacks and inadequacies. The reaction to which is a kind of despairing despite. The self-loather is drowning in these believed, accusing voices. In essence, this is raw guilt. But the picture it represents isn't always straightforward.

The solution often posed by modern counselling methods is simply to retrain the mind to ignore guilt. Way back in 1968, Frances Schaeffer said:

“Few [today] believe in guilt anymore. There is only ‘sickness’, or ‘guilt feelings', or ‘sociological non-conformity’. There is no such thing as true [moral] guilt.” – Francis Schaeffer (The God Who is There, 1968)

The 'self-loather' must learn to 'self-love'. To gain an appreciation of his/her competence and worth. After all, he/she is no worse than anyone else, when all is said and done. The problem with this from a Christian perspective is that no such advice is ever given in the Bible. And, practically, from where does such profound conviction come, if the self-loather is to accept it as other than self-delusion? Or simply the imposed view from somewhere else? The origin of such mind-training must have credence and authority if it is to be persuasive at all.

A Question of Conscience

In order to get a handle on this, if we are to arrive at Christian answers, we need to frame the problem in Biblical terms. Then, we stand some chance of arriving at a Biblical answer which has God's authority behind it. It is, surely, to be expected that the Creator of humanity would have something - and something useful - to say about this. First, let's consider the inner, accusing voice - what is it? Well, we don't have to look too far to see that this is the human faculty of the conscience. And Paul, very helpfully, talks about how it works. He does so in Romans 2:

"All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares." (vs 12 - 16)

Paul is comparing Jews and Gentiles (non-Jews). He wants to explain that every human being is accountable to God for the way they live, and will be judged accordingly. The Jew - the Israelite - has received and lives under the Law of Moses, given on Mount Sinai. In it, God gave specific commands as to how His chosen people were to live in the promised land of Canaan, before Christ came. And ultimately, they would be judged by the law they had received. But Gentiles had not been given God's law(s). So how will they be judged and called to account? Paul's answer enlightens. Let's break it down.

The Inner Compass

1. God's judgement will be on the basis of lifestyle, not on religious privilege. His judgement will be on moral grounds.

2. Gentiles, who do not have God's Law, nevertheless have an 'inner compass', which indicates to them what is right and what is wrong.

3. Paul describes this is a kind of 'self-law'. It arises from within the human heart. We can conjecture where it came from. Is it a remnant of mans' having been made in God's image? Or of the drastic change which took place when Adam, the first man, ate of the tree 'of the knowledge of good and evil', in disobedience to God's command? Paul does not say what he means by 'by nature'. Created nature? Or sinful nature?

4. Whatever he source of this natural, law-like capacity, Paul says it indicates that those things which the Law, given later, required are written on the human heart. We can observe this in our world. In any society, there are accepted maxims of behaviour - for example, against murder. Where do such things come from? We see Paul's answer.

The Inner Policeman

Then, Paul goes on to speak of an additional 'inner policeman' - the conscience. Conscience is a second, natural function of the human heart which attends the first. It bears witness'. Within the individual, it passes its own judgement on decisions and actions - things done, said, or even thought. Or things which we propose to do or say. Conscience says 'you should have' or 'you shouldn't have'. It can be retrospective, or it can be forward-looking. And sometimes it justifies us, and other times it condemns us. Now here is the clue.

When conscience condemns, we experience guilt ...

When we knew what was right to do, but didn't do it, or
When we knew what was wrong to do, but we did it anyway

Paul says that conscience can behave in two ways. It can either accuse us or it can excuse us. And he seems to infer that because this is just a human thing, it is, to a greater or lesser extent, arbitrary. It is not perfect, not infallible. The judgements of our conscience are not always right. It can accuse when it should not, and it can acquit when it should not. Nevertheless, outside of Christ, it will be sufficient to condemn - rightly condemn - sinners on the Day of Judgement. No man or woman will be able to say, "I didn't know".

So, when our conscience approves, we feel self-justified, and when our conscience disapproves, we feel self-condemned.

True Guilt and False Guilt

But the picture needs more detail. There is 'true guilt' and there is 'false guilt'.

• True guilt is when we are justly accused by or conscience - we should have behaved differently. 
• False guilt is when we are accused by our conscience of that which we were not at fault in. 

So with true guilt, the conscience is working as God intended.

With false guilt, however, something has gone wrong, it is malfunctioning. Self-loathing can be as a result of things which happened to us in the past - child abuse, for example - over which we had no control. Our conscience, however, convinces us that what took place was somehow our fault, and we are blameworthy.What results is an ongoing lack of self-esteem which can be crippling and produces misery.

Fearfully, Wonderfully Made

Let us take a moment to reflect how astounding these human faculties are. That within the human heart; whatever it is that 'I' know as 'me', there is not only self-awareness, but also a kind of parallel awareness that allows 'me' to stand alongside 'myself' and evaluate 'my' actions. Nevertheless, this 'second me' part is also 'me'. This self-critical aspect does not result in fragmentation of my being. It is vitally and intimately connected, integrated and useful. It allows my mind to modify my behaviour, so that my living in this world is not purely reactive. It results in a consciousness that not only have 'I' done something, but also an awareness of why I have done it. And it measures the worth of that action on some kind of scale of values.

Some will say that all of this just happened - it evolved completely by chance. But our Bibles tell us that it was designed. It is a part of what makes humans so distinct from other animals. It points to a 'right-ness' which is outside of ourselves and not determined by us at all. And this is true despite the fact that we are unable to maintain a consistency by it. It raises human behaviour above anything and everything around us. "We are fearfully and wonderfully made" (Psalm 139 vs 14). And that which we esteem as noble and proper amongst our kind comes from elsewhere. We live, not according to our own devised measure, but by that of Another. This all points to the God who made us, our Creator. Who is, Himself, perfectly all that we are imperfectly, but desire to be. And we know, deep down, that we fall short of our own standards so often, and of His. Conscience, then, has a purpose. It may have been damaged when man rebelled against God and chose his own way. But it is not to be discarded as if it is unnecessary.

How Does Conscience Operate?

Consider that you are driving in a built-up area of your local town. All around you are houses where people - families - live. You pass schools and shops. There are pedestrians and cyclists, as well as other drivers on the road. And you are aware that there is a 30 mile an hour speed limit in force. You know that this has been set by law. And you understand that the reason it is there is to protect those who also inhabit this space. It determines the time it will take you to bring your vehicle to a halt if it is necessary to do so - say, for example, that a dog or a child runs out in the road in front of you. But your observing the speed limit does not depend on your being persuaded of its legitimacy. Whether you agree with it or not, or whether or not you think it should be greater or lesser is irrelevant. The law has set it where it is, and you are expected to comply, to obey.

Now let's say that in the course of your drive, you happen to look at your speedometer, and you notice that you have inadvertently allowed your speed to climb above 30mph.

First, imagine that you see that you are travelling at 31mph. What is your reaction? Perhaps a little twinge of guilt - a kind of 'oops' moment, but you excuse yourself - after all, it wasn't much over, and 'anyone could do that'. It's a simple mistake. You ease back and drop your speed below the limit.

Now lets say that your current speed is 35mph. Reaction? Its an 'argh' moment. You realise that, although inadvertently, you are breaking the law. You don't just 'ease back, you firmly brake to bring your speed down. And you most definitely, now, feel guilty. What happens in your head? Were there, according to your thinking, acceptable reasons? Had you accelerated to get out of the way of something, or to overtake another slower moving vehicle? If so, maybe your reflection justifies your action. But you have, nevertheless, broken the law.

Third scenario. Your speed is in excess of 30mph. An elderly person steps off the curb as you approach, and there is a collision, resulting in injury. Now what happens? You blame yourself. Whatever the reasons, you were going faster than you should have been.

These are all examples of the activity of our conscience. But can you see how changeable the conclusions are, depending on a whole range of factors. Mitigating factors argue for excusing, whereas disastrous outcome pushes the other way. But all are instances where we have done something 'wrong'. Conscience, then, is not a consistent tool, even though its 'persuasion' is towards 'doing what is right'.

States of Conscience

Seared Consciences

The Bible talks about 'seared consciences:

"The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer." (1 Timothy 4 vs 1 – 5)

These are those who have deliberately ignored their own consciences so that they can not only live just as they please without being bothered by the inner, nagging voice, but they teach others that its perfectly OK to do the same. They have cauterised the nerve endings so that the 'alarm' signal is no longer a response in situations where it should be sounding loudly. And we thus learn the dangers of persistently suppressing the voice of conscience. The response to the burglar alarm should not be to simply see it as a nuisance, and learn to ignore it, thus allowing the burglar to roam free and get away with whatever he wants!

Weak Consciences

The word of God also speaks of 'weak' consciences:

"Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if someone with a weak conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol’s temple, won’t that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to idols? So this weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. When you sin against them in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall." (1 Corinthians 8 vs 9 - 13)

Paul argues that:

1. There is legitimate knowledge of the freedoms from the shackles of the world, that Christ brings to those who are His. In the issue he is addressing, concerning meat that has been offered to idols, specifically, he says:

"So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.” For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.""

Thus, this freeing knowledge is that an idol is nothing, for there is but one true God. Therefore, meat that has been offered to these non-existent beings remains precisely what it was - meat. It is impossible for a 'nothing' to leave any taint or power as residue in anything that has been used in the worship of it. Nothing evil to adversely affect the believer in Christ.

This amazing truth has far-reaching effects. Nothing in the pagan, non-Christian world can affect those who are safely within the stronghold of the Saviour. We need have no fear that anything created by God and hailed by Him as 'good', even though it has been misappropriated by the world or the evil one, and twisted to serve purposes God never intended - nothing in God's good world can 'absorb' malevolent power. No symbol or object used in Godless worship. No written text. No idolatrous priestly tool. It is not just that the power of God is greater than evil powers. It is that what is inanimate has no ability to be affected by evil. Matter remains matter, pure and simple. We are not to be 'superstitious Christians'. This is 'strong faith'.

2. However, Paul says, "not all possess this knowledge".

"Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god"

By 'not possessing', Paul surely means that there are believers who are not convinced by this truth. Because of their former attachment and practice, there is a kind of 'residue of faith' belonging to the past - their hearts are telling them that these old things still have power. They do believe they are under the Lordship of Christ. But they have not yet come to the fullness of faith, in this particular respect, which assures them of the utter impotence and emptiness of what they once did. They have, in this area, only 'weak faith'.

3. If such believers - and believers they undoubtedly are, for they are those 'for whom Christ died', and they are brothers - are encouraged to do that about which their conscience accuses them, they do not act 'in faith'. Effectively, they say, 'I'm unsure whether this action is acceptable or pleasing to God, but I'm going to do it anyway'. They are 'emboldened' - pushed - to copy what their 'stronger' brother is doing, but without being convinced themselves. And such a motive is sinning!

Positively, then, we can say that our actions should proceed from our being thoroughly persuaded, from God's authoritative word, how we should live. Thus we should be diligently reading our Bibles and being schooled in what God says. Our minds should be 'being transformed' - retrained in our outlook on the world in which we are, so that our behaviour is modified by that. God's intention for His children is that they grow in freedom. He wants weak faith to grow into strong faith; weak consciences to become strong consciences.

4. Thus, Paul says, there is another, associated state of conscience here - the 'wounded conscience'. Believers, who are holding that their found freedoms in Christ are their 'rights', and that no-one has the right to take them away, should be aware that their perhaps-blase, overriding attitudes can cause those who are newer Christians, with 'baggage' to stumble. Doing this is not the action of love. And thus the perpetrator, himself, sins against his brother, and against Christ:

"When you sin against them in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ"

In Romans 14, Paul identifies other area where this can be in play:

* Eating anything vs eating only vegetables
* Regarding all days as blessed vs regarding 'special' days (holy days)